On Monday, March 7, 2022 at 8:25:01 PM UTC-7, David Johnston wrote:
> On 2022-03-07 10:08 a.m., Paul S Person wrote:

> > 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.

But the Senate never ratified that one!

John Savard

On Monday, March 7, 2022 at 9:32:55 PM UTC-7, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> On 3/7/2022 9:24 PM, David Johnston wrote:

> > 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

So? That just means that it would not be possible to go to court to legally
compel the United States to defend Ukraine.

A promise is still a promise! And it's wrong to stand idly by while a bully is
killing people!

Of course, avoiding a global nuclear war is kind of an overriding necessity
that must even take precedence over the ordinary rules of right and wrong
that we were taught as children. But such a situation is painful and unpleasant.

I expect that the American people may react emotionally to the situation if
it continues up to the 2024 elections. They may feel that an effective way to
get Russia out of Ukraine would be to deal with it the same way they dealt
with the Iran hostage crisis.

That is: elect a Republican President who will not be cowed by Russian nuclear
threats, but who _will_ send U.S. troops in if the Russians should happen to still
be in Ukraine by the time he is inaugurated.

Just as throwing the steering wheel out the window of your car is an effective
strategy in the adolescent pastime of "chicken", this sort of thing comes recommended
by Hermann Kahn himself (_Thinking About the Unthinkable_, _On Thermonuclear War_).

Someone just posted here that crazy is all I've got. But others, I fear, see crazy
as an option. And they're not _entirely_ wrong. I mean, it's clearly working for Putin.

John Savard

On Monday, March 7, 2022 at 5:04:27 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
> On 2022-03-07 2:42 p.m., Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:

> > 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!

Sometimes, one has to analyze his mordant satire in order to
understand what he really means.

The hidden nefarious powers controlling the U.S. President are
easily frightened? No. That isn't true.

But what is true (at least, in his opinion) is that these neo-liberal
Illuminati cabalists _don't care_ in the slightest about ordinary
people - not in the United States, and much less in Ukraine - and so
it wouldn't take more than a "baby rattle" to deter them from intervening
there, because, as the Ferengi would say, there is no profit in it.

So, once it is interpreted correctly, it stops being funny.

John Savard

On Monday, March 7, 2022 at 9:32:55 PM UTC-7, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> I am not sure what the status of South Korea is.

The Republic of Korea is a fully independent and sovereign
state, in no way whatsoever a territory or dependency of the
United States of America, which just happens to be graciously
stationing a number of military personnel on its soil with the
consent of its government.

I know there are some left-wing radicals who might find that
hard to believe, but the fact that the U.S. may, in the past, have
interfered in local South Korean politics to depose leaders in
that country with an insufficient commitment to the war effort,
while it may be questionable, does not change the basic legal
status of the situation.

John Savard

In article <XnsAE5387AA695D3taustingmail@85.12.62.232>,
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:

> "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.

US Air Force does have some Mig-29s, see
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Mikoyan_MiG-29_operators#_United_S
tates>

--
"We have advanced to new and surprising levels of bafflement."
Imperial Auditor Miles Vorkosigan describes progress in _Komarr_.
�-----------------------------------------------------
Robert Woodward robertaw@drizzle.com

Paul S Person <psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in
news:451f2hhv9sb41ei84n39kho2s59d8nnvdg@4ax.com:

> On Mon, 07 Mar 2022 15:42:00 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
> Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> 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.
>
> Nice projection.
>
> But, with his approval rating popping right back up to 47% and
> 85% of the country approving how he is handling the Ukraine, not
> very relevant.

Only a moron believes polls. Regardless of who they favor. What
people will notice is $6/gallon gasoline (which I saw this
morning). And they'll remember it come November, by which time it
will be Trump's predicted $7/gallon. Or more.

--
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, 7 March 2022 at 05:18:27 UTC, Quadibloc 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.

I didn't make myself clear. There is no justification
for describing your Ukraine war plans in r.a.sf.w
even if America or Russia or China is right now
doing exactly what you describe. This is a science
fiction reading group and not a captive audience
for whatever you want to talk about, and,
notwithstanding also other people actually
responding, you're trespassing on our attention.
In fact, you are trolling. Yet again.

On 2022-03-08 7:38 a.m., Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
> Paul S Person <psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in
> news:451f2hhv9sb41ei84n39kho2s59d8nnvdg@4ax.com:
>
>> On Mon, 07 Mar 2022 15:42:00 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
>> Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> 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.
>>
>> Nice projection.
>>
>> But, with his approval rating popping right back up to 47% and
>> 85% of the country approving how he is handling the Ukraine, not
>> very relevant.
>
> Only a moron believes polls. Regardless of who they favor. What
> people will notice is $6/gallon gasoline (which I saw this
> morning). And they'll remember it come November, by which time it
> will be Trump's predicted $7/gallon. Or more.

And so what?

Would it have been any different under Trump?

Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote in
news:40c89f04-a097-40fb-a8f5-6d07a4a4359fn@googlegroups.com:

> On Monday, 7 March 2022 at 05:18:27 UTC, Quadibloc 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.
>
> I didn't make myself clear. There is no justification
> for describing your Ukraine war plans in r.a.sf.w
> even if America or Russia or China is right now
> doing exactly what you describe. This is a science
> fiction reading group

No, it's a *speculative* fiction reading group, which inclues
fantasy. And pretty much everything Quaddie posts is fantasy.
Mostly, insane revenge fantasy, but that's hardly different from
Lynn's post-apocalypitic revenge fantasy.

--
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

In article <XnsAE54636088B3Ctaustingmail@85.12.62.232>,
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:

> Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote in
> news:40c89f04-a097-40fb-a8f5-6d07a4a4359fn@googlegroups.com:
>
> > On Monday, 7 March 2022 at 05:18:27 UTC, Quadibloc 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.
> >
> > I didn't make myself clear. There is no justification
> > for describing your Ukraine war plans in r.a.sf.w
> > even if America or Russia or China is right now
> > doing exactly what you describe. This is a science
> > fiction reading group
>
> No, it's a *speculative* fiction reading group, which inclues
> fantasy. And pretty much everything Quaddie posts is fantasy.
> Mostly, insane revenge fantasy, but that's hardly different from
> Lynn's post-apocalypitic revenge fantasy.

Except that somebody wrote those post-apocalyptic revenge fantasies that
Lynn buys, thus his posts are definitely on topic while Quadi's is
arguably not.

--
"We have advanced to new and surprising levels of bafflement."
Imperial Auditor Miles Vorkosigan describes progress in _Komarr_.
�-----------------------------------------------------
Robert Woodward robertaw@drizzle.com

Robert Woodward <robertaw@drizzle.com> wrote in
news:robertaw-A0274C.10075708032022@news.individual.net:

> In article <XnsAE54636088B3Ctaustingmail@85.12.62.232>,
> Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote in
>> news:40c89f04-a097-40fb-a8f5-6d07a4a4359fn@googlegroups.com:
>>
>> > On Monday, 7 March 2022 at 05:18:27 UTC, Quadibloc 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.
>> >
>> > I didn't make myself clear. There is no justification
>> > for describing your Ukraine war plans in r.a.sf.w
>> > even if America or Russia or China is right now
>> > doing exactly what you describe. This is a science
>> > fiction reading group
>>
>> No, it's a *speculative* fiction reading group, which inclues
>> fantasy. And pretty much everything Quaddie posts is fantasy.
>> Mostly, insane revenge fantasy, but that's hardly different
>> from Lynn's post-apocalypitic revenge fantasy.
>
> Except that somebody wrote those post-apocalyptic revenge
> fantasies that Lynn buys, thus his posts are definitely on topic
> while Quadi's is arguably not.
>
Are you claiming that Quaddie didn't write his own posts? That no
one wrote them? Did they just magically appear as the result of
random cosmic rays? (Though that would explain a few things.)

--
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 3/8/2022 9:38 AM, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
> Paul S Person <psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in
> news:451f2hhv9sb41ei84n39kho2s59d8nnvdg@4ax.com:
>
>> On Mon, 07 Mar 2022 15:42:00 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
>> Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> 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.
>>
>> Nice projection.
>>
>> But, with his approval rating popping right back up to 47% and
>> 85% of the country approving how he is handling the Ukraine, not
>> very relevant.
>
> Only a moron believes polls. Regardless of who they favor. What
> people will notice is $6/gallon gasoline (which I saw this
> morning). And they'll remember it come November, by which time it
> will be Trump's predicted $7/gallon. Or more.

"Flashback: Trump Warns Gas will Be $7+ if Biden Elected (VIDEO)"
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/03/flashback-trump-warns-gas-will-7-biden-elected-video/

Trump was right !

Lynn

On 2022-03-08 2:48 p.m., Lynn McGuire wrote:
> On 3/8/2022 9:38 AM, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>> Paul S Person <psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in
>> news:451f2hhv9sb41ei84n39kho2s59d8nnvdg@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Mon, 07 Mar 2022 15:42:00 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
>>> Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> 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.
>>>
>>> Nice projection.
>>>
>>> But, with his approval rating popping right back up to 47% and
>>> 85% of the country approving how he is handling the Ukraine, not
>>> very relevant.
>>
>> Only a moron believes polls. Regardless of who they favor. What
>> people will notice is $6/gallon gasoline (which I saw this
>> morning). And they'll remember it come November, by which time it
>> will be Trump's predicted $7/gallon. Or more.
>
> "Flashback: Trump Warns Gas will Be $7+ if Biden Elected (VIDEO)"
>
> https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/03/flashback-trump-warns-gas-will-7-biden-elected-video/
>
>
> Trump was right !

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

On 3/7/2022 11:05 PM, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
> 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

Japan has been a protectorate of the USA since 1945. The 1945 treaty
has been replaced and revised several times but never rescinded due to
the Russian occupation of two Japanese islands since 1945. You can call
it a mutual defense treaty but Japan has no means of projecting their power.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Mutual_Cooperation_and_Security_between_the_United_States_and_Japan

Lynn

On 3/7/2022 11:39 PM, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Monday, March 7, 2022 at 9:32:55 PM UTC-7, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>> On 3/7/2022 9:24 PM, David Johnston wrote:
>
>>> 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
>
> So? That just means that it would not be possible to go to court to legally
> compel the United States to defend Ukraine.
>
> A promise is still a promise! And it's wrong to stand idly by while a bully is
> killing people!
>
> Of course, avoiding a global nuclear war is kind of an overriding necessity
> that must even take precedence over the ordinary rules of right and wrong
> that we were taught as children. But such a situation is painful and unpleasant.
>
> I expect that the American people may react emotionally to the situation if
> it continues up to the 2024 elections. They may feel that an effective way to
> get Russia out of Ukraine would be to deal with it the same way they dealt
> with the Iran hostage crisis.
>
> That is: elect a Republican President who will not be cowed by Russian nuclear
> threats, but who _will_ send U.S. troops in if the Russians should happen to still
> be in Ukraine by the time he is inaugurated.
>
> Just as throwing the steering wheel out the window of your car is an effective
> strategy in the adolescent pastime of "chicken", this sort of thing comes recommended
> by Hermann Kahn himself (_Thinking About the Unthinkable_, _On Thermonuclear War_).
>
> Someone just posted here that crazy is all I've got. But others, I fear, see crazy
> as an option. And they're not _entirely_ wrong. I mean, it's clearly working for Putin.
>
> John Savard

Promises are worth NOTHING ! As soon as the administration changes, all
promises become moot. Besides that, without a treaty, a President is
very limited in projecting USA armed forces without Congresses permission.

Lynn

On 2022-03-08 2:52 p.m., Lynn McGuire wrote:
> On 3/7/2022 11:05 PM, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>> 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
>
> Japan has been a protectorate of the USA since 1945.

Japan is NOT a US Protectorate:

> The 1945 treaty
> has been replaced and revised several times but never rescinded due
> to the Russian occupation of two Japanese islands since 1945. You
> can call it a mutual defense treaty but Japan has no means of
> projecting their power.

Really? Japan has no military at all?

No air force?

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Air_Self-Defense_Force#Aircraft>

No navy?

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_Japan_Maritime_Self-Defense_Force_ships>

>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Mutual_Cooperation_and_Security_between_the_United_States_and_Japan

Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote in
news:t08mf8$1ve$1@dont-email.me:

> On 3/8/2022 9:38 AM, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>> Paul S Person <psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in
>> news:451f2hhv9sb41ei84n39kho2s59d8nnvdg@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Mon, 07 Mar 2022 15:42:00 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
>>> Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> 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.
>>>
>>> Nice projection.
>>>
>>> But, with his approval rating popping right back up to 47% and
>>> 85% of the country approving how he is handling the Ukraine,
>>> not very relevant.
>>
>> Only a moron believes polls. Regardless of who they favor. What
>> people will notice is $6/gallon gasoline (which I saw this
>> morning). And they'll remember it come November, by which time
>> it will be Trump's predicted $7/gallon. Or more.
>
> "Flashback: Trump Warns Gas will Be $7+ if Biden Elected
> (VIDEO)"
>
> https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/03/flashback-trump-warns-ga
> s-will-7-biden-elected-video/
>
> Trump was right !
>
Hardly a surprise. Predicting that the Democrats will ass fuck the
economy doesn't require any genius.

--
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 2022-03-08 3:40 p.m., Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:t08mf8$1ve$1@dont-email.me:
>
>> On 3/8/2022 9:38 AM, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>>> Paul S Person <psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in
>>> news:451f2hhv9sb41ei84n39kho2s59d8nnvdg@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 07 Mar 2022 15:42:00 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
>>>> Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> 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.
>>>>
>>>> Nice projection.
>>>>
>>>> But, with his approval rating popping right back up to 47% and
>>>> 85% of the country approving how he is handling the Ukraine,
>>>> not very relevant.
>>>
>>> Only a moron believes polls. Regardless of who they favor. What
>>> people will notice is $6/gallon gasoline (which I saw this
>>> morning). And they'll remember it come November, by which time
>>> it will be Trump's predicted $7/gallon. Or more.
>>
>> "Flashback: Trump Warns Gas will Be $7+ if Biden Elected
>> (VIDEO)"
>>
>> https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/03/flashback-trump-warns-ga
>> s-will-7-biden-elected-video/
>>
>> Trump was right !
>>
> Hardly a surprise. Predicting that the Democrats will ass fuck the
> economy doesn't require any genius.
>

LOL!

On 3/8/2022 6:18 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Mar 2022 16:52:40 -0600, Lynn McGuire
> <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 3/7/2022 11:05 PM, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>>> 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
>>
>> Japan has been a protectorate of the USA since 1945. The 1945 treaty
>> has been replaced and revised several times but never rescinded due to
>> the Russian occupation of two Japanese islands since 1945. You can call
>> it a mutual defense treaty but Japan has no means of projecting their power.
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Mutual_Cooperation_and_Security_between_the_United_States_and_Japan
>
> You do know that Japan has a carrier in service capable of operating
> F-35s do you not?

Nope but not surprised. Is that the VTOL F-35B and is it an amphibious
carrier built by USA like the USS Wasp ? Do they have their F-35s yet ?

Lynn

On 3/8/2022 6:32 PM, J. Clarke wrote:

>> US Air Force does have some Mig-29s, see
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Mikoyan_MiG-29_operators#_United_S
>> tates>
>
> The correct statement is that the United States government has some
> pieces that were formerly MiG-29s.

Oh no, did we crash them all ?

Wait, we dissected them for the info.

Lynn

On 3/8/2022 2:52 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> On 3/7/2022 11:05 PM, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>> 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
>
> Japan has been a protectorate of the USA since 1945.  The 1945 treaty
> has been replaced and revised several times but never rescinded due to
> the Russian occupation of two Japanese islands since 1945.  You can call
> it a mutual defense treaty but Japan has no means of projecting their
> power.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Mutual_Cooperation_and_Security_between_the_United_States_and_Japan
>
The US doesn't consider Japan a protectorate. A Protectorate is US
territory not part of a state and the residents of which are American
citizens. And the 1960 revision per your own link removed American
authority to intervene in Japanese domestic affairs. The limitation on
Japan projecting military power was by their own choice and in recent
years they have been debating changes to their laws to allow deployment
outside of Japan and its territorial waters. The US has no say in the
matter (if anything the US has probably been encouraging them to).

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

On Tuesday, March 8, 2022 at 3:54:47 PM UTC-7, Lynn McGuire wrote:

> Promises are worth NOTHING ! As soon as the administration changes, all
> promises become moot. Besides that, without a treaty, a President is
> very limited in projecting USA armed forces without Congresses permission.

It's also possible that the agreement in question was only a promise on the
part of the U.S.A. and Russia not to invade Ukraine if it gave up its nuclear
weapons. In that case, only Russia is in violatiion. The U.S. has not annexed
any part of Ukraine.

John Savard

On Tuesday, March 8, 2022 at 5:32:16 PM UTC-7, J. Clarke wrote:

> The correct statement is that the United States government has some
> pieces that were formerly MiG-29s.

But what about Chinese airplanes? They might have captured some during
the Korean War.

But bombing Moscow with planes *of that vintage* is also not going to
fool anyone.

Given the Russian misuse of the letter Z, it would be very nice if the U.S.
had some secret advanced technology to unveil, so that you could throw
the letter _∙|∙‾ right back at them. But, alas, wishes are not horses.

John Savard

On Tuesday, March 8, 2022 at 5:18:10 PM UTC-7, J. Clarke wrote:

> You do know that Japan has a carrier in service capable of operating
> F-35s do you not?

I thought we still didn't know if there was even such a plane as the
F-35.

Yes, Japan has a Self-Defense Force, but its constitution limits it to the
use of its forces only in direct self-defense. That, however, has apparently
been changing slightly of late, but I'm not familiar with the details.

John Savard

On Tuesday, March 8, 2022 at 9:06:38 PM UTC-5, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 8, 2022 at 5:18:10 PM UTC-7, J. Clarke wrote:
>
> > You do know that Japan has a carrier in service capable of operating
> > F-35s do you not?
> I thought we still didn't know if there was even such a plane as the
> F-35.

What are you talking about? The F-35 has been deployed since 2015.
https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II

Pt