You mean semantic arguments like "western expansion does not mean western expansionism?Sam Lowry said:Which words in bold? I did not use the word "expansionism."Quote:Uh, yes you did. See your words in bold.Quote:No one called it "expansionism." I'm referring to NATO's addition of new members.Quote:"Western Expansion."Quote:
They matter equally, but that's not the question. Redbrick asked where is the endpoint to Western expansion. REMF replied that Western expansion is voluntary. Even assuming that's true, it's not an answer.
The word "expansionism" has a meaning. And it means by force.
No NATO army has invaded Ukraine. Or Belarus. Or Sweden. Or Finland. Or Georgia. Or Armenia.
Only the Russian army has invaded to expand its influence.
If a people of a country look to the east for lessons, then look to the west for lessons, and decide the west offers far better lessons, that is not expansionism.
As a matter of textbook definition = Only Russia has engaged in expansionism.
NATO did not recruit anyone. Others applied to enter, after seeing aggressive RUSSIAN EXPANSIONISM.
I mean, seriously.
(Russia invades Ukraine.)
Sam says: "This is a result of western expansionism."
(crowd groans)
Your argument here is like criticizing Travis for allowing Bonham and others in to help defend the Alamo as an unreasonable provocation which caused Santa Ana to attack.
(at a loss as to why you would continue playing such a dreadfully weak hand)......
Semantic arguments are about the weakest hand you can play.
Russia mobilizes
261,298 Views |
4259 Replies |
Last: 1 yr ago by sombear
That was a problem late WOT. Starting under Trump and continuing under Biden, that is changing. Planners spotted the transition to near-peer conflicts and we are pivoting to big fires in the Army, and Marines ditching tanks & doing seaborne assault, etc....RMF5630 said:Have to maintain training and logistics capabilities. The US Military on the wall is the ONLY thing keeping us free.Oldbear83 said:
Bulls-eye.
What sets the US apart is training doctrine.
Plan, train, review and adapt.
Then repeat.
That kind of training is difficult and expensive, and a lot of people see no value in it, especially places like China and Russia where image is far more important than actual ability.
Large nations seldom believe they face real threats. China today is a lot like the US in say, 1935. They look good on paper but are nowhere near ready for a war against a determined opponent.
Between 1970 and 1985, the US rebuilt its military to be ready for actual threats, and it showed in several wars since then. China - speaking bluntly - has stolen much of the technology they used to build their military, which means they have trouble adapting it to specific needs, and in understanding its limits.
Meanwhile, Taiwan has slowly built a defense which can cause China a lot of pain while providing time for the US to send help.
Knowing this, China has used its influence to affect US foreign policy. If you want to know who has been the focus of China's efforts to drive US policy, look for the members of the House and Senate who say the US cannot beat China, or that defending Taiwan would lead to a bad loss for the US.
And yes, the 'woke' policies of Biden's DOD will decay our ability to fight and win. They are already damaging our ability to recruit able soldiers, sailors and airmen.
One thing I am a bit disappointed in is the focus and escalation of special operations. Necessary, best trained, but the Armor, Infantry, Artillery, Surface Warships, Sub Service, Marine Expeditionary, and the Air Force is just as important. Making it seem if you are not a SEAL you are not really a serving or if you are a logistics/support/Engineering you are a REMF. That kills morale and in a near peer war, those non-glorified jobs are what is going to win. Media pisses me off with that *****..
3 years ago, son hopped on an Osprey full of whoop-ass in Hawaii, flew to Guam, landed and assaulted some notional enemy position, then loaded back up on the Osprey & flew back to Hawaii.
not saying we're ready, but the changes are underway
You hit the nail on the head. The WOT shifted the pendulum too far for a while to the anit-terror mission. There were some that thought we would never have to fight a Ukraine again. Desert Storm was believed to be the last hurrah of the Armored Corps. SF and SEAL used to be re-enlistment options, not off the street recruitments. They wanted you to go Ranger first and re-up SF. AF always did a good job of developing a "pipeline" for the Combat Controllers and PJs off the street. It looks like we are getting a more realistic shift to a force make-up for the 21st Century.whiterock said:That was a problem late WOT. Starting under Trump and continuing under Biden, that is changing. Planners spotted the transition to near-peer conflicts and we are pivoting to big fires in the Army, and Marines ditching tanks & doing seaborne assault, etc....RMF5630 said:Have to maintain training and logistics capabilities. The US Military on the wall is the ONLY thing keeping us free.Oldbear83 said:
Bulls-eye.
What sets the US apart is training doctrine.
Plan, train, review and adapt.
Then repeat.
That kind of training is difficult and expensive, and a lot of people see no value in it, especially places like China and Russia where image is far more important than actual ability.
Large nations seldom believe they face real threats. China today is a lot like the US in say, 1935. They look good on paper but are nowhere near ready for a war against a determined opponent.
Between 1970 and 1985, the US rebuilt its military to be ready for actual threats, and it showed in several wars since then. China - speaking bluntly - has stolen much of the technology they used to build their military, which means they have trouble adapting it to specific needs, and in understanding its limits.
Meanwhile, Taiwan has slowly built a defense which can cause China a lot of pain while providing time for the US to send help.
Knowing this, China has used its influence to affect US foreign policy. If you want to know who has been the focus of China's efforts to drive US policy, look for the members of the House and Senate who say the US cannot beat China, or that defending Taiwan would lead to a bad loss for the US.
And yes, the 'woke' policies of Biden's DOD will decay our ability to fight and win. They are already damaging our ability to recruit able soldiers, sailors and airmen.
One thing I am a bit disappointed in is the focus and escalation of special operations. Necessary, best trained, but the Armor, Infantry, Artillery, Surface Warships, Sub Service, Marine Expeditionary, and the Air Force is just as important. Making it seem if you are not a SEAL you are not really a serving or if you are a logistics/support/Engineering you are a REMF. That kills morale and in a near peer war, those non-glorified jobs are what is going to win. Media pisses me off with that *****..
3 years ago, son hopped on an Osprey full of whoop-ass in Hawaii, flew to Guam, landed and assaulted some notional enemy position, then loaded back up on the Osprey & flew back to Hawaii.
not saying we're ready, but the changes are underway
I am envious. What a time to be getting Commissioned. So many opportunities and different areas to be in the first wave. Think about it, if you are going Space Force, AI/Cyber, or even FONA or working with new Nations, you can be in the first generation development and do the development, set the rules, and have a real say. Not since the Space Program in the 50's has there been this type of opportunity to think and play an active role in determining mission, tactics and even doctrine. Even at the Ops level, missions are being made up for new parameters never done where decisions have to be made in the field on how to do it, not the 2 millionth patrol of the DMZ. Alot of opportunities...
Daughter was offered to be in the first class of the Space Force Command & General Staff College, SF didn't do what other services have done and create their own college. They cut a deal with Johns Hopkins to host a program. Grads will get a JH graduate degree. She was tempted but didn't want to do the obligatory tour in SF. She wants to move stuff around and will be up for command when she finishes the AFCGS.RMF5630 said:You hit the nail on the head. The WOT shifted the pendulum too far for a while to the anit-terror mission. There were some that thought we would never have to fight a Ukraine again. Desert Storm was believed to be the last hurrah of the Armored Corps. SF and SEAL used to be re-enlistment options, not off the street recruitments. They wanted you to go Ranger first and re-up SF. AF always did a good job of developing a "pipeline" for the Combat Controllers and PJs off the street. It looks like we are getting a more realistic shift to a force make-up for the 21st Century.whiterock said:That was a problem late WOT. Starting under Trump and continuing under Biden, that is changing. Planners spotted the transition to near-peer conflicts and we are pivoting to big fires in the Army, and Marines ditching tanks & doing seaborne assault, etc....RMF5630 said:Have to maintain training and logistics capabilities. The US Military on the wall is the ONLY thing keeping us free.Oldbear83 said:
Bulls-eye.
What sets the US apart is training doctrine.
Plan, train, review and adapt.
Then repeat.
That kind of training is difficult and expensive, and a lot of people see no value in it, especially places like China and Russia where image is far more important than actual ability.
Large nations seldom believe they face real threats. China today is a lot like the US in say, 1935. They look good on paper but are nowhere near ready for a war against a determined opponent.
Between 1970 and 1985, the US rebuilt its military to be ready for actual threats, and it showed in several wars since then. China - speaking bluntly - has stolen much of the technology they used to build their military, which means they have trouble adapting it to specific needs, and in understanding its limits.
Meanwhile, Taiwan has slowly built a defense which can cause China a lot of pain while providing time for the US to send help.
Knowing this, China has used its influence to affect US foreign policy. If you want to know who has been the focus of China's efforts to drive US policy, look for the members of the House and Senate who say the US cannot beat China, or that defending Taiwan would lead to a bad loss for the US.
And yes, the 'woke' policies of Biden's DOD will decay our ability to fight and win. They are already damaging our ability to recruit able soldiers, sailors and airmen.
One thing I am a bit disappointed in is the focus and escalation of special operations. Necessary, best trained, but the Armor, Infantry, Artillery, Surface Warships, Sub Service, Marine Expeditionary, and the Air Force is just as important. Making it seem if you are not a SEAL you are not really a serving or if you are a logistics/support/Engineering you are a REMF. That kills morale and in a near peer war, those non-glorified jobs are what is going to win. Media pisses me off with that *****..
3 years ago, son hopped on an Osprey full of whoop-ass in Hawaii, flew to Guam, landed and assaulted some notional enemy position, then loaded back up on the Osprey & flew back to Hawaii.
not saying we're ready, but the changes are underway
I am envious. What a time to be getting Commissioned. So many opportunities and different areas to be in the first wave. Think about it, if you are going Space Force, AI/Cyber, or even FONA or working with new Nations, you can be in the first generation development and do the development, set the rules, and have a real say. Not since the Space Program in the 50's has there been this type of opportunity to think and play an active role in determining mission, tactics and even doctrine. Even at the Ops level, missions are being made up for new parameters never done where decisions have to be made in the field on how to do it, not the 2 millionth patrol of the DMZ. Alot of opportunities...
That seems to be the way Air Force culture, which is what SF is based on, seems to do. I have a friend that teaches at Arizona, he teaches AF Academy Cadets Systems Engineering. I really like the model. I think that AF being more technically based and younger understands it cannot house the internal staff AND keep up on new innovations for the base education (Officer Training to War College level). They also don't have the years of institutional crap to fight through. I know they have their own in-house capabilities, but why build the whole package, when you can tap into world class programs AND spend your funds on truly specific cutting edge stuff. I am impressed with AF and how they go about their business.whiterock said:Daughter was offered to be in the first class of the Space Force Command & General Staff College, SF didn't do what other services have done and create their own college. They cut a deal with Johns Hopkins to host a program. Grads will get a JH graduate degree. She was tempted but didn't want to do the obligatory tour in SF. She wants to move stuff around and will be up for command when she finishes the AFCGS.RMF5630 said:You hit the nail on the head. The WOT shifted the pendulum too far for a while to the anit-terror mission. There were some that thought we would never have to fight a Ukraine again. Desert Storm was believed to be the last hurrah of the Armored Corps. SF and SEAL used to be re-enlistment options, not off the street recruitments. They wanted you to go Ranger first and re-up SF. AF always did a good job of developing a "pipeline" for the Combat Controllers and PJs off the street. It looks like we are getting a more realistic shift to a force make-up for the 21st Century.whiterock said:That was a problem late WOT. Starting under Trump and continuing under Biden, that is changing. Planners spotted the transition to near-peer conflicts and we are pivoting to big fires in the Army, and Marines ditching tanks & doing seaborne assault, etc....RMF5630 said:Have to maintain training and logistics capabilities. The US Military on the wall is the ONLY thing keeping us free.Oldbear83 said:
Bulls-eye.
What sets the US apart is training doctrine.
Plan, train, review and adapt.
Then repeat.
That kind of training is difficult and expensive, and a lot of people see no value in it, especially places like China and Russia where image is far more important than actual ability.
Large nations seldom believe they face real threats. China today is a lot like the US in say, 1935. They look good on paper but are nowhere near ready for a war against a determined opponent.
Between 1970 and 1985, the US rebuilt its military to be ready for actual threats, and it showed in several wars since then. China - speaking bluntly - has stolen much of the technology they used to build their military, which means they have trouble adapting it to specific needs, and in understanding its limits.
Meanwhile, Taiwan has slowly built a defense which can cause China a lot of pain while providing time for the US to send help.
Knowing this, China has used its influence to affect US foreign policy. If you want to know who has been the focus of China's efforts to drive US policy, look for the members of the House and Senate who say the US cannot beat China, or that defending Taiwan would lead to a bad loss for the US.
And yes, the 'woke' policies of Biden's DOD will decay our ability to fight and win. They are already damaging our ability to recruit able soldiers, sailors and airmen.
One thing I am a bit disappointed in is the focus and escalation of special operations. Necessary, best trained, but the Armor, Infantry, Artillery, Surface Warships, Sub Service, Marine Expeditionary, and the Air Force is just as important. Making it seem if you are not a SEAL you are not really a serving or if you are a logistics/support/Engineering you are a REMF. That kills morale and in a near peer war, those non-glorified jobs are what is going to win. Media pisses me off with that *****..
3 years ago, son hopped on an Osprey full of whoop-ass in Hawaii, flew to Guam, landed and assaulted some notional enemy position, then loaded back up on the Osprey & flew back to Hawaii.
not saying we're ready, but the changes are underway
I am envious. What a time to be getting Commissioned. So many opportunities and different areas to be in the first wave. Think about it, if you are going Space Force, AI/Cyber, or even FONA or working with new Nations, you can be in the first generation development and do the development, set the rules, and have a real say. Not since the Space Program in the 50's has there been this type of opportunity to think and play an active role in determining mission, tactics and even doctrine. Even at the Ops level, missions are being made up for new parameters never done where decisions have to be made in the field on how to do it, not the 2 millionth patrol of the DMZ. Alot of opportunities...
Son was being recruited for football in JR year, recruiter ended up going to another school and no one picked up on it or too late in cycle. Anyway, was disappointed that fell off.
Xi Arrives In Moscow As Putin Says Both Facing "Fierce &Â Aggressive" United States https://t.co/QQjra9ovnP
— zerohedge (@zerohedge) March 20, 2023
Xi taking the time to visit his largest vassal in person
This administration will not tolerate peace. Unbelievable.
NOW - Blinken: "The world should not be fooled by any tactical move by Russia, supported by China or any other country, to freeze the war on its own terms." pic.twitter.com/ECqZuCle0r
— Disclose.tv (@disclosetv) March 20, 2023
Yeah, tolerate peace when Russia has taken the southern half of Ukraine. Now, that's a real Peace...Doc Holliday said:
This administration will not tolerate peace. Unbelievable.NOW - Blinken: "The world should not be fooled by any tactical move by Russia, supported by China or any other country, to freeze the war on its own terms." pic.twitter.com/ECqZuCle0r
— Disclose.tv (@disclosetv) March 20, 2023
Ok, we lose AZ, NM, TX and Southern CA, Mexico wants to call for peace. You against a peace????
RMF5630 said:Yeah, tolerate peace when Russia has taken the southern half of Ukraine. Now, that's a real Peace...Doc Holliday said:
This administration will not tolerate peace. Unbelievable.NOW - Blinken: "The world should not be fooled by any tactical move by Russia, supported by China or any other country, to freeze the war on its own terms." pic.twitter.com/ECqZuCle0r
— Disclose.tv (@disclosetv) March 20, 2023
Ok, we lose AZ, NM, TX and Southern CA, Mexico wants to call for peace. You against a peace????
If the people in Arizonia, New Mexico, Texas, and Southern California don't want to be part of the USA anymore....should we bomb, attack, and kill them to keep them in a political union?
Lets say this proxy war just keeps ongoing and Ukraine just can't handle it any longer. Whats your redline at that point?RMF5630 said:Yeah, tolerate peace when Russia has taken the southern half of Ukraine. Now, that's a real Peace...Doc Holliday said:
This administration will not tolerate peace. Unbelievable.NOW - Blinken: "The world should not be fooled by any tactical move by Russia, supported by China or any other country, to freeze the war on its own terms." pic.twitter.com/ECqZuCle0r
— Disclose.tv (@disclosetv) March 20, 2023
Ok, we lose AZ, NM, TX and Southern CA, Mexico wants to call for peace. You against a peace????
Would you put US boots on the ground in Ukraine to directly fight against Russia?
Keep em coming over the border Comrade and we shall see...Redbrickbear said:RMF5630 said:Yeah, tolerate peace when Russia has taken the southern half of Ukraine. Now, that's a real Peace...Doc Holliday said:
This administration will not tolerate peace. Unbelievable.NOW - Blinken: "The world should not be fooled by any tactical move by Russia, supported by China or any other country, to freeze the war on its own terms." pic.twitter.com/ECqZuCle0r
— Disclose.tv (@disclosetv) March 20, 2023
Ok, we lose AZ, NM, TX and Southern CA, Mexico wants to call for peace. You against a peace????
If the people in Arizonia, New Mexico, Texas, and Southern California don't want to be part of the USA anymore....should we bomb, attack, and kill them to keep them in a political union?
A real answer, if you are a fan of Lincoln. Hell yes...
RMF5630 said:Keep em coming over the border Comrade and we shall see...Redbrickbear said:RMF5630 said:Yeah, tolerate peace when Russia has taken the southern half of Ukraine. Now, that's a real Peace...Doc Holliday said:
This administration will not tolerate peace. Unbelievable.NOW - Blinken: "The world should not be fooled by any tactical move by Russia, supported by China or any other country, to freeze the war on its own terms." pic.twitter.com/ECqZuCle0r
— Disclose.tv (@disclosetv) March 20, 2023
Ok, we lose AZ, NM, TX and Southern CA, Mexico wants to call for peace. You against a peace????
If the people in Arizonia, New Mexico, Texas, and Southern California don't want to be part of the USA anymore....should we bomb, attack, and kill them to keep them in a political union?
A real answer, if you are a fan of Lincoln. Hell yes...
We that is where we just differ.
It is highly immoral to kill vast numbers of people, burn down cities, and make ruthless war on people to keep them in artificial political unions against their will.
The Founding Fathers would be as appalled by your views. They had just fought a war of secession to get out of the United Kingdom.
If in 30 years the people of the American southwest want out...you seem to be fine with the idea of killing them in mass.
So, you are a fan of Jefferson Davis and the Confederation?Redbrickbear said:RMF5630 said:Keep em coming over the border Comrade and we shall see...Redbrickbear said:RMF5630 said:Yeah, tolerate peace when Russia has taken the southern half of Ukraine. Now, that's a real Peace...Doc Holliday said:
This administration will not tolerate peace. Unbelievable.NOW - Blinken: "The world should not be fooled by any tactical move by Russia, supported by China or any other country, to freeze the war on its own terms." pic.twitter.com/ECqZuCle0r
— Disclose.tv (@disclosetv) March 20, 2023
Ok, we lose AZ, NM, TX and Southern CA, Mexico wants to call for peace. You against a peace????
If the people in Arizonia, New Mexico, Texas, and Southern California don't want to be part of the USA anymore....should we bomb, attack, and kill them to keep them in a political union?
A real answer, if you are a fan of Lincoln. Hell yes...
We that is where we just differ.
It is highly immoral to kill vast numbers of people, burn down cities, and make ruthless war on people to keep them in artificial political unions against their will.
The Founding Fathers would be as appalled by your views. They had just fought a war of secession to get out of the United Kingdom.
If in 30 years the people of the American southwest want out...you seem to be fine with the idea of killing them in mass.
Depends on if they attack the US and claim US land as their own. If they decide that Ft Hood is now theirs? Or take Port Houston? They can not want to be part of the US to their hearts desire. They are welcome to go somewhere that makes them happy. They are not allowed to take US sovereign soil and facilities. If you or they do, what comes is on them.
What's the Confederation? Canada?RMF5630 said:So, you are a fan of Jefferson Davis and the Confederation?Redbrickbear said:RMF5630 said:Keep em coming over the border Comrade and we shall see...Redbrickbear said:RMF5630 said:Yeah, tolerate peace when Russia has taken the southern half of Ukraine. Now, that's a real Peace...Doc Holliday said:
This administration will not tolerate peace. Unbelievable.NOW - Blinken: "The world should not be fooled by any tactical move by Russia, supported by China or any other country, to freeze the war on its own terms." pic.twitter.com/ECqZuCle0r
— Disclose.tv (@disclosetv) March 20, 2023
Ok, we lose AZ, NM, TX and Southern CA, Mexico wants to call for peace. You against a peace????
If the people in Arizonia, New Mexico, Texas, and Southern California don't want to be part of the USA anymore....should we bomb, attack, and kill them to keep them in a political union?
A real answer, if you are a fan of Lincoln. Hell yes...
We that is where we just differ.
It is highly immoral to kill vast numbers of people, burn down cities, and make ruthless war on people to keep them in artificial political unions against their will.
The Founding Fathers would be as appalled by your views. They had just fought a war of secession to get out of the United Kingdom.
If in 30 years the people of the American southwest want out...you seem to be fine with the idea of killing them in mass.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Confederation
Or are you talking about the Confederate States of America (The Confederacy)?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_of_America
Don't be coy. You are the one defending Texas or NM leaving the US and we should just say ok...Redbrickbear said:What's the Confederation? Canada?RMF5630 said:So, you are a fan of Jefferson Davis and the Confederation?Redbrickbear said:RMF5630 said:Keep em coming over the border Comrade and we shall see...Redbrickbear said:RMF5630 said:Yeah, tolerate peace when Russia has taken the southern half of Ukraine. Now, that's a real Peace...Doc Holliday said:
This administration will not tolerate peace. Unbelievable.NOW - Blinken: "The world should not be fooled by any tactical move by Russia, supported by China or any other country, to freeze the war on its own terms." pic.twitter.com/ECqZuCle0r
— Disclose.tv (@disclosetv) March 20, 2023
Ok, we lose AZ, NM, TX and Southern CA, Mexico wants to call for peace. You against a peace????
If the people in Arizonia, New Mexico, Texas, and Southern California don't want to be part of the USA anymore....should we bomb, attack, and kill them to keep them in a political union?
A real answer, if you are a fan of Lincoln. Hell yes...
We that is where we just differ.
It is highly immoral to kill vast numbers of people, burn down cities, and make ruthless war on people to keep them in artificial political unions against their will.
The Founding Fathers would be as appalled by your views. They had just fought a war of secession to get out of the United Kingdom.
If in 30 years the people of the American southwest want out...you seem to be fine with the idea of killing them in mass.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Confederation
Or are you talking about the Confederate States of America (The Confederacy)?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_of_America
Then, that is on them.
Not being coy...just find it funny you thought the CSA was called the Confederation.RMF5630 said:Don't be coy. You are the one defending Texas or NM leaving the US and we should just say ok...Redbrickbear said:What's the Confederation? Canada?RMF5630 said:So, you are a fan of Jefferson Davis and the Confederation?Redbrickbear said:RMF5630 said:Keep em coming over the border Comrade and we shall see...Redbrickbear said:RMF5630 said:Yeah, tolerate peace when Russia has taken the southern half of Ukraine. Now, that's a real Peace...Doc Holliday said:
This administration will not tolerate peace. Unbelievable.NOW - Blinken: "The world should not be fooled by any tactical move by Russia, supported by China or any other country, to freeze the war on its own terms." pic.twitter.com/ECqZuCle0r
— Disclose.tv (@disclosetv) March 20, 2023
Ok, we lose AZ, NM, TX and Southern CA, Mexico wants to call for peace. You against a peace????
If the people in Arizonia, New Mexico, Texas, and Southern California don't want to be part of the USA anymore....should we bomb, attack, and kill them to keep them in a political union?
A real answer, if you are a fan of Lincoln. Hell yes...
We that is where we just differ.
It is highly immoral to kill vast numbers of people, burn down cities, and make ruthless war on people to keep them in artificial political unions against their will.
The Founding Fathers would be as appalled by your views. They had just fought a war of secession to get out of the United Kingdom.
If in 30 years the people of the American southwest want out...you seem to be fine with the idea of killing them in mass.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Confederation
Or are you talking about the Confederate States of America (The Confederacy)?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_of_America
Then, that is on them.
And of course I defend the right of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and southern California to leave a artificial political union.
What kind of monster would kill people to keep them in a political association?
[Jeff Davis said: "the American idea that governments rest on the consent of the governed, and that is there is the right of the people to alter or abolish them whenever they become destructive to the ends for which they are established." Also, planting a seed for the legitimacy of voluntary government, he said: "A section settled by violence, or in disregard of the law, must remain unsettled forever."]
Really, that is what you find funny out of this conversation?? I can see a lot of other comments here that would be funny besides a slang on the CSA.Redbrickbear said:Not being coy...just find it funny you thought the CSA was called the Confederation.RMF5630 said:Don't be coy. You are the one defending Texas or NM leaving the US and we should just say ok...Redbrickbear said:What's the Confederation? Canada?RMF5630 said:So, you are a fan of Jefferson Davis and the Confederation?Redbrickbear said:RMF5630 said:Keep em coming over the border Comrade and we shall see...Redbrickbear said:RMF5630 said:Yeah, tolerate peace when Russia has taken the southern half of Ukraine. Now, that's a real Peace...Doc Holliday said:
This administration will not tolerate peace. Unbelievable.NOW - Blinken: "The world should not be fooled by any tactical move by Russia, supported by China or any other country, to freeze the war on its own terms." pic.twitter.com/ECqZuCle0r
— Disclose.tv (@disclosetv) March 20, 2023
Ok, we lose AZ, NM, TX and Southern CA, Mexico wants to call for peace. You against a peace????
If the people in Arizonia, New Mexico, Texas, and Southern California don't want to be part of the USA anymore....should we bomb, attack, and kill them to keep them in a political union?
A real answer, if you are a fan of Lincoln. Hell yes...
We that is where we just differ.
It is highly immoral to kill vast numbers of people, burn down cities, and make ruthless war on people to keep them in artificial political unions against their will.
The Founding Fathers would be as appalled by your views. They had just fought a war of secession to get out of the United Kingdom.
If in 30 years the people of the American southwest want out...you seem to be fine with the idea of killing them in mass.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Confederation
Or are you talking about the Confederate States of America (The Confederacy)?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_of_America
Then, that is on them.
And of course I defend the right of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and southern California to leave a artificial political union.
What kind of monster would kill people to keep them in a political association?
[Jeff Davis said: "the American idea that governments rest on the consent of the governed, and that is there is the right of the people to alter or abolish them whenever they become destructive to the ends for which they are established." Also, planting a seed for the legitimacy of voluntary government, he said: "A section settled by violence, or in disregard of the law, must remain unsettled forever."]
Leave the slang aside.RMF5630 said:Really, that is what you find funny out of this conversation?? I can see a lot of other comments here that would be funny besides a slang on the CSA.Redbrickbear said:Not being coy...just find it funny you thought the CSA was called the Confederation.RMF5630 said:Don't be coy. You are the one defending Texas or NM leaving the US and we should just say ok...Redbrickbear said:What's the Confederation? Canada?RMF5630 said:So, you are a fan of Jefferson Davis and the Confederation?Redbrickbear said:RMF5630 said:Keep em coming over the border Comrade and we shall see...Redbrickbear said:RMF5630 said:Yeah, tolerate peace when Russia has taken the southern half of Ukraine. Now, that's a real Peace...Doc Holliday said:
This administration will not tolerate peace. Unbelievable.NOW - Blinken: "The world should not be fooled by any tactical move by Russia, supported by China or any other country, to freeze the war on its own terms." pic.twitter.com/ECqZuCle0r
— Disclose.tv (@disclosetv) March 20, 2023
Ok, we lose AZ, NM, TX and Southern CA, Mexico wants to call for peace. You against a peace????
If the people in Arizonia, New Mexico, Texas, and Southern California don't want to be part of the USA anymore....should we bomb, attack, and kill them to keep them in a political union?
A real answer, if you are a fan of Lincoln. Hell yes...
We that is where we just differ.
It is highly immoral to kill vast numbers of people, burn down cities, and make ruthless war on people to keep them in artificial political unions against their will.
The Founding Fathers would be as appalled by your views. They had just fought a war of secession to get out of the United Kingdom.
If in 30 years the people of the American southwest want out...you seem to be fine with the idea of killing them in mass.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Confederation
Or are you talking about the Confederate States of America (The Confederacy)?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_of_America
Then, that is on them.
And of course I defend the right of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and southern California to leave a artificial political union.
What kind of monster would kill people to keep them in a political association?
[Jeff Davis said: "the American idea that governments rest on the consent of the governed, and that is there is the right of the people to alter or abolish them whenever they become destructive to the ends for which they are established." Also, planting a seed for the legitimacy of voluntary government, he said: "A section settled by violence, or in disregard of the law, must remain unsettled forever."]
And focus on the morality of killing people in the modern day for leaving a political union.
Something the Founding Fathers did.
Why should people in New Mexico be killed if they decide to leave the United States of America...and join the United Mexican States?
Kill people? Of course not. If they do not want to be US citizens they are allowed to leave. Move to Mexico if that is where they choose. Are they allowed to attack the US and take US Sovereign land? No. Then they will be removed. If THEY choose to bear arms against the US? US will defend its territory. Not a difficult concept.Redbrickbear said:Not being coy...just find it funny you thought the CSA was called the Confederation.RMF5630 said:Don't be coy. You are the one defending Texas or NM leaving the US and we should just say ok...Redbrickbear said:What's the Confederation? Canada?RMF5630 said:So, you are a fan of Jefferson Davis and the Confederation?Redbrickbear said:RMF5630 said:Keep em coming over the border Comrade and we shall see...Redbrickbear said:RMF5630 said:Yeah, tolerate peace when Russia has taken the southern half of Ukraine. Now, that's a real Peace...Doc Holliday said:
This administration will not tolerate peace. Unbelievable.NOW - Blinken: "The world should not be fooled by any tactical move by Russia, supported by China or any other country, to freeze the war on its own terms." pic.twitter.com/ECqZuCle0r
— Disclose.tv (@disclosetv) March 20, 2023
Ok, we lose AZ, NM, TX and Southern CA, Mexico wants to call for peace. You against a peace????
If the people in Arizonia, New Mexico, Texas, and Southern California don't want to be part of the USA anymore....should we bomb, attack, and kill them to keep them in a political union?
A real answer, if you are a fan of Lincoln. Hell yes...
We that is where we just differ.
It is highly immoral to kill vast numbers of people, burn down cities, and make ruthless war on people to keep them in artificial political unions against their will.
The Founding Fathers would be as appalled by your views. They had just fought a war of secession to get out of the United Kingdom.
If in 30 years the people of the American southwest want out...you seem to be fine with the idea of killing them in mass.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Confederation
Or are you talking about the Confederate States of America (The Confederacy)?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_of_America
Then, that is on them.
And of course I defend the right of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and southern California to leave a artificial political union.
What kind of monster would kill people to keep them in a political association?
[Jeff Davis said: "the American idea that governments rest on the consent of the governed, and that is there is the right of the people to alter or abolish them whenever they become destructive to the ends for which they are established." Also, planting a seed for the legitimacy of voluntary government, he said: "A section settled by violence, or in disregard of the law, must remain unsettled forever."]
I guess I am confused in why they would attack the US and expect to not be harmed. Those that want to take US Territory and secede are the aggressors here. You seem to have it backwards. They are welcome as US citizens to live their lives, say what they believe or leave if they choose.
Why are you for being able to take a Nation's territory just because you want it? That seems an extreme position.
RMF5630 said:Kill people? Of course not. If they do not want to be US citizens they are allowed to leave. Move to Mexico if that is where they choose. Are they allowed to attack the US and take US Sovereign land? No. Then they will be removed. If THEY choose to bear arms against the US? US will defend its territory. Not a difficult concept.Redbrickbear said:Not being coy...just find it funny you thought the CSA was called the Confederation.RMF5630 said:Don't be coy. You are the one defending Texas or NM leaving the US and we should just say ok...Redbrickbear said:What's the Confederation? Canada?RMF5630 said:So, you are a fan of Jefferson Davis and the Confederation?Redbrickbear said:RMF5630 said:Keep em coming over the border Comrade and we shall see...Redbrickbear said:RMF5630 said:Yeah, tolerate peace when Russia has taken the southern half of Ukraine. Now, that's a real Peace...Doc Holliday said:
This administration will not tolerate peace. Unbelievable.NOW - Blinken: "The world should not be fooled by any tactical move by Russia, supported by China or any other country, to freeze the war on its own terms." pic.twitter.com/ECqZuCle0r
— Disclose.tv (@disclosetv) March 20, 2023
Ok, we lose AZ, NM, TX and Southern CA, Mexico wants to call for peace. You against a peace????
If the people in Arizonia, New Mexico, Texas, and Southern California don't want to be part of the USA anymore....should we bomb, attack, and kill them to keep them in a political union?
A real answer, if you are a fan of Lincoln. Hell yes...
We that is where we just differ.
It is highly immoral to kill vast numbers of people, burn down cities, and make ruthless war on people to keep them in artificial political unions against their will.
The Founding Fathers would be as appalled by your views. They had just fought a war of secession to get out of the United Kingdom.
If in 30 years the people of the American southwest want out...you seem to be fine with the idea of killing them in mass.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Confederation
Or are you talking about the Confederate States of America (The Confederacy)?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_of_America
Then, that is on them.
And of course I defend the right of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and southern California to leave a artificial political union.
What kind of monster would kill people to keep them in a political association?
[Jeff Davis said: "the American idea that governments rest on the consent of the governed, and that is there is the right of the people to alter or abolish them whenever they become destructive to the ends for which they are established." Also, planting a seed for the legitimacy of voluntary government, he said: "A section settled by violence, or in disregard of the law, must remain unsettled forever."]
I guess I am confused in why they would attack the US and expect to not be harmed. Those that want to take US Territory and secede are the aggressors here. You seem to have it backwards. They are welcome as US citizens to live their lives, say what they believe or leave if they choose.
Why are you for being able to take a Nation's territory just because you want it? That seems an extreme position.
What if Mexico does not attack.
What if the people of New Mexico vote to leave the union.
Why should they be prevented from making that decision?
They are perfectly able to leave. They can go today.Redbrickbear said:RMF5630 said:Kill people? Of course not. If they do not want to be US citizens they are allowed to leave. Move to Mexico if that is where they choose. Are they allowed to attack the US and take US Sovereign land? No. Then they will be removed. If THEY choose to bear arms against the US? US will defend its territory. Not a difficult concept.Redbrickbear said:Not being coy...just find it funny you thought the CSA was called the Confederation.RMF5630 said:Don't be coy. You are the one defending Texas or NM leaving the US and we should just say ok...Redbrickbear said:What's the Confederation? Canada?RMF5630 said:So, you are a fan of Jefferson Davis and the Confederation?Redbrickbear said:RMF5630 said:Keep em coming over the border Comrade and we shall see...Redbrickbear said:RMF5630 said:Yeah, tolerate peace when Russia has taken the southern half of Ukraine. Now, that's a real Peace...Doc Holliday said:
This administration will not tolerate peace. Unbelievable.NOW - Blinken: "The world should not be fooled by any tactical move by Russia, supported by China or any other country, to freeze the war on its own terms." pic.twitter.com/ECqZuCle0r
— Disclose.tv (@disclosetv) March 20, 2023
Ok, we lose AZ, NM, TX and Southern CA, Mexico wants to call for peace. You against a peace????
If the people in Arizonia, New Mexico, Texas, and Southern California don't want to be part of the USA anymore....should we bomb, attack, and kill them to keep them in a political union?
A real answer, if you are a fan of Lincoln. Hell yes...
We that is where we just differ.
It is highly immoral to kill vast numbers of people, burn down cities, and make ruthless war on people to keep them in artificial political unions against their will.
The Founding Fathers would be as appalled by your views. They had just fought a war of secession to get out of the United Kingdom.
If in 30 years the people of the American southwest want out...you seem to be fine with the idea of killing them in mass.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Confederation
Or are you talking about the Confederate States of America (The Confederacy)?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_of_America
Then, that is on them.
And of course I defend the right of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and southern California to leave a artificial political union.
What kind of monster would kill people to keep them in a political association?
[Jeff Davis said: "the American idea that governments rest on the consent of the governed, and that is there is the right of the people to alter or abolish them whenever they become destructive to the ends for which they are established." Also, planting a seed for the legitimacy of voluntary government, he said: "A section settled by violence, or in disregard of the law, must remain unsettled forever."]
I guess I am confused in why they would attack the US and expect to not be harmed. Those that want to take US Territory and secede are the aggressors here. You seem to have it backwards. They are welcome as US citizens to live their lives, say what they believe or leave if they choose.
Why are you for being able to take a Nation's territory just because you want it? That seems an extreme position.
What if Mexico does not attack.
What if the people of New Mexico vote to leave the union.
Why should they be prevented from making that decision?
The State is part of the US and US Territory. It is not theirs to take. It is not a decision they can make. This was all settled in 1865 by a guy named Lincoln. The people of a State cannot just vote to leave. Look up White vs Texas, the only way is if both State and US in Congress agreed. So, it has been determined legally and on the battle field, a State cannot unilaterally leave. No matter how many people are sad.
They have no standing to vote that outcome. I mean why can't they just vote to add the panhandle of Texas to their state? The same basis that stops you from being infringed upon also ties you to your nation. Now the US could negotiate the sale of New Mexico to Mexico, or the people of New Mexico could negotiate to buy New Mexico from the US I suppose. Mexico could invade and under a peace negotiation get New Mexico. The concept of Liberty doesn't give you rights to the property or rights of others, including the government. Conflicting secession is an act of taking and war. Especially when individuals are free to leave and have avenues of redress for property owned, etc.Redbrickbear said:RMF5630 said:Kill people? Of course not. If they do not want to be US citizens they are allowed to leave. Move to Mexico if that is where they choose. Are they allowed to attack the US and take US Sovereign land? No. Then they will be removed. If THEY choose to bear arms against the US? US will defend its territory. Not a difficult concept.Redbrickbear said:Not being coy...just find it funny you thought the CSA was called the Confederation.RMF5630 said:Don't be coy. You are the one defending Texas or NM leaving the US and we should just say ok...Redbrickbear said:What's the Confederation? Canada?RMF5630 said:So, you are a fan of Jefferson Davis and the Confederation?Redbrickbear said:RMF5630 said:Keep em coming over the border Comrade and we shall see...Redbrickbear said:RMF5630 said:Yeah, tolerate peace when Russia has taken the southern half of Ukraine. Now, that's a real Peace...Doc Holliday said:
This administration will not tolerate peace. Unbelievable.NOW - Blinken: "The world should not be fooled by any tactical move by Russia, supported by China or any other country, to freeze the war on its own terms." pic.twitter.com/ECqZuCle0r
— Disclose.tv (@disclosetv) March 20, 2023
Ok, we lose AZ, NM, TX and Southern CA, Mexico wants to call for peace. You against a peace????
If the people in Arizonia, New Mexico, Texas, and Southern California don't want to be part of the USA anymore....should we bomb, attack, and kill them to keep them in a political union?
A real answer, if you are a fan of Lincoln. Hell yes...
We that is where we just differ.
It is highly immoral to kill vast numbers of people, burn down cities, and make ruthless war on people to keep them in artificial political unions against their will.
The Founding Fathers would be as appalled by your views. They had just fought a war of secession to get out of the United Kingdom.
If in 30 years the people of the American southwest want out...you seem to be fine with the idea of killing them in mass.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Confederation
Or are you talking about the Confederate States of America (The Confederacy)?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_of_America
Then, that is on them.
And of course I defend the right of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and southern California to leave a artificial political union.
What kind of monster would kill people to keep them in a political association?
[Jeff Davis said: "the American idea that governments rest on the consent of the governed, and that is there is the right of the people to alter or abolish them whenever they become destructive to the ends for which they are established." Also, planting a seed for the legitimacy of voluntary government, he said: "A section settled by violence, or in disregard of the law, must remain unsettled forever."]
I guess I am confused in why they would attack the US and expect to not be harmed. Those that want to take US Territory and secede are the aggressors here. You seem to have it backwards. They are welcome as US citizens to live their lives, say what they believe or leave if they choose.
Why are you for being able to take a Nation's territory just because you want it? That seems an extreme position.
What if Mexico does not attack.
What if the people of New Mexico vote to leave the union.
Why should they be prevented from making that decision?
Ask enough Americans or Texans, and you'll get answers that run the gamut. Just like you'd get a variety of answers from Russians and Ukrainians about their issues. The question isn't what you or I should say in a territorial dispute over Texas. The question is whether Russia should have a say. If you think you have a say in the dispute over Ukraine, by your logic the answer would seem to be yes.RMF5630 said:Don't be coy. You are the one defending Texas or NM leaving the US and we should just say ok...Redbrickbear said:What's the Confederation? Canada?RMF5630 said:So, you are a fan of Jefferson Davis and the Confederation?Redbrickbear said:RMF5630 said:Keep em coming over the border Comrade and we shall see...Redbrickbear said:RMF5630 said:Yeah, tolerate peace when Russia has taken the southern half of Ukraine. Now, that's a real Peace...Doc Holliday said:
This administration will not tolerate peace. Unbelievable.NOW - Blinken: "The world should not be fooled by any tactical move by Russia, supported by China or any other country, to freeze the war on its own terms." pic.twitter.com/ECqZuCle0r
— Disclose.tv (@disclosetv) March 20, 2023
Ok, we lose AZ, NM, TX and Southern CA, Mexico wants to call for peace. You against a peace????
If the people in Arizonia, New Mexico, Texas, and Southern California don't want to be part of the USA anymore....should we bomb, attack, and kill them to keep them in a political union?
A real answer, if you are a fan of Lincoln. Hell yes...
We that is where we just differ.
It is highly immoral to kill vast numbers of people, burn down cities, and make ruthless war on people to keep them in artificial political unions against their will.
The Founding Fathers would be as appalled by your views. They had just fought a war of secession to get out of the United Kingdom.
If in 30 years the people of the American southwest want out...you seem to be fine with the idea of killing them in mass.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Confederation
Or are you talking about the Confederate States of America (The Confederacy)?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_of_America
Then, that is on them.
ATL Bear said:They have no standing to vote that outcome. I mean why can't they just vote to add the panhandle of Texas to their state? The same basis that stops you from being infringed upon also ties you to your nation. Now the US could negotiate the sale of New Mexico to Mexico, or the people of New Mexico could negotiate to buy New Mexico from the US I suppose. Mexico could invade and under a peace negotiation get New Mexico. The concept of Liberty doesn't give you rights to the property or rights of others, including the government. Conflicting secession is an act of taking and war. Especially when individuals are free to leave and have avenues of redress for property owned, etc.Redbrickbear said:RMF5630 said:Kill people? Of course not. If they do not want to be US citizens they are allowed to leave. Move to Mexico if that is where they choose. Are they allowed to attack the US and take US Sovereign land? No. Then they will be removed. If THEY choose to bear arms against the US? US will defend its territory. Not a difficult concept.Redbrickbear said:Not being coy...just find it funny you thought the CSA was called the Confederation.RMF5630 said:Don't be coy. You are the one defending Texas or NM leaving the US and we should just say ok...Redbrickbear said:What's the Confederation? Canada?RMF5630 said:So, you are a fan of Jefferson Davis and the Confederation?Redbrickbear said:RMF5630 said:Keep em coming over the border Comrade and we shall see...Redbrickbear said:RMF5630 said:Yeah, tolerate peace when Russia has taken the southern half of Ukraine. Now, that's a real Peace...Doc Holliday said:
This administration will not tolerate peace. Unbelievable.NOW - Blinken: "The world should not be fooled by any tactical move by Russia, supported by China or any other country, to freeze the war on its own terms." pic.twitter.com/ECqZuCle0r
— Disclose.tv (@disclosetv) March 20, 2023
Ok, we lose AZ, NM, TX and Southern CA, Mexico wants to call for peace. You against a peace????
If the people in Arizonia, New Mexico, Texas, and Southern California don't want to be part of the USA anymore....should we bomb, attack, and kill them to keep them in a political union?
A real answer, if you are a fan of Lincoln. Hell yes...
We that is where we just differ.
It is highly immoral to kill vast numbers of people, burn down cities, and make ruthless war on people to keep them in artificial political unions against their will.
The Founding Fathers would be as appalled by your views. They had just fought a war of secession to get out of the United Kingdom.
If in 30 years the people of the American southwest want out...you seem to be fine with the idea of killing them in mass.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Confederation
Or are you talking about the Confederate States of America (The Confederacy)?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_of_America
Then, that is on them.
And of course I defend the right of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and southern California to leave a artificial political union.
What kind of monster would kill people to keep them in a political association?
[Jeff Davis said: "the American idea that governments rest on the consent of the governed, and that is there is the right of the people to alter or abolish them whenever they become destructive to the ends for which they are established." Also, planting a seed for the legitimacy of voluntary government, he said: "A section settled by violence, or in disregard of the law, must remain unsettled forever."]
I guess I am confused in why they would attack the US and expect to not be harmed. Those that want to take US Territory and secede are the aggressors here. You seem to have it backwards. They are welcome as US citizens to live their lives, say what they believe or leave if they choose.
Why are you for being able to take a Nation's territory just because you want it? That seems an extreme position.
What if Mexico does not attack.
What if the people of New Mexico vote to leave the union.
Why should they be prevented from making that decision?
See I would fundamentally disagree.
The U.S. constitution does NOT give the Federal government the power to sell a State to Mexico (or any other country).
And the U.S. Constitution does not give the Federal government the power to attack a State like New Mexico if it votes to leave.
Many people seem to think the USA is a unitary nation state like France or Spain.
That can give its provinces away…but it's provinces can never break off on their own.
We are a Union of Sovereign States. And the Federal government in D.C. has no powers that are not specifically listed and granted to it.
Difference is my answer is US Law. No State can decide unilaterally to leave, period. Been decided, actually it was a Texas lawsuit. US Feds can back it up. Try to take Houston and the Ports as an independent State, see how that goes. See how much of the Texas National Guard follows the order from the Governor to take Ft Hood...Sam Lowry said:Ask enough Americans or Texans, and you'll get answers that run the gamut. Just like you'd get a variety of answers from Russians and Ukrainians about their issues. The question isn't what you or I should say in a territorial dispute over Texas. The question is whether Russia should have a say. If you think you have a say in the dispute over Ukraine, by your logic the answer would seem to be yes.RMF5630 said:Don't be coy. You are the one defending Texas or NM leaving the US and we should just say ok...Redbrickbear said:What's the Confederation? Canada?RMF5630 said:So, you are a fan of Jefferson Davis and the Confederation?Redbrickbear said:RMF5630 said:Keep em coming over the border Comrade and we shall see...Redbrickbear said:RMF5630 said:Yeah, tolerate peace when Russia has taken the southern half of Ukraine. Now, that's a real Peace...Doc Holliday said:
This administration will not tolerate peace. Unbelievable.NOW - Blinken: "The world should not be fooled by any tactical move by Russia, supported by China or any other country, to freeze the war on its own terms." pic.twitter.com/ECqZuCle0r
— Disclose.tv (@disclosetv) March 20, 2023
Ok, we lose AZ, NM, TX and Southern CA, Mexico wants to call for peace. You against a peace????
If the people in Arizonia, New Mexico, Texas, and Southern California don't want to be part of the USA anymore....should we bomb, attack, and kill them to keep them in a political union?
A real answer, if you are a fan of Lincoln. Hell yes...
We that is where we just differ.
It is highly immoral to kill vast numbers of people, burn down cities, and make ruthless war on people to keep them in artificial political unions against their will.
The Founding Fathers would be as appalled by your views. They had just fought a war of secession to get out of the United Kingdom.
If in 30 years the people of the American southwest want out...you seem to be fine with the idea of killing them in mass.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Confederation
Or are you talking about the Confederate States of America (The Confederacy)?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_of_America
Then, that is on them.
As for Ukraine, people can't just decide to take Sovereign land and join another Nation. They can leave, but to say because I now live in Crimea I can decide to become part of Russia? Show me a precedent that supports that in any World Court. Or, do laws not matter anymore? Which would be a strange position for an Attorney. Iraq tried it with Kuwait. World and UN matter or nothing matters.
Don't jump the messenger, but a democratically elected Congress, Senate, and President is your de facto representation in these matters, supported by your state and local government. Federalism long ago settled the question of who has the ultimate decision in a matter of this sort.Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:They have no standing to vote that outcome. I mean why can't they just vote to add the panhandle of Texas to their state? The same basis that stops you from being infringed upon also ties you to your nation. Now the US could negotiate the sale of New Mexico to Mexico, or the people of New Mexico could negotiate to buy New Mexico from the US I suppose. Mexico could invade and under a peace negotiation get New Mexico. The concept of Liberty doesn't give you rights to the property or rights of others, including the government. Conflicting secession is an act of taking and war. Especially when individuals are free to leave and have avenues of redress for property owned, etc.Redbrickbear said:RMF5630 said:Kill people? Of course not. If they do not want to be US citizens they are allowed to leave. Move to Mexico if that is where they choose. Are they allowed to attack the US and take US Sovereign land? No. Then they will be removed. If THEY choose to bear arms against the US? US will defend its territory. Not a difficult concept.Redbrickbear said:Not being coy...just find it funny you thought the CSA was called the Confederation.RMF5630 said:Don't be coy. You are the one defending Texas or NM leaving the US and we should just say ok...Redbrickbear said:What's the Confederation? Canada?RMF5630 said:So, you are a fan of Jefferson Davis and the Confederation?Redbrickbear said:RMF5630 said:Keep em coming over the border Comrade and we shall see...Redbrickbear said:RMF5630 said:Yeah, tolerate peace when Russia has taken the southern half of Ukraine. Now, that's a real Peace...Doc Holliday said:
This administration will not tolerate peace. Unbelievable.NOW - Blinken: "The world should not be fooled by any tactical move by Russia, supported by China or any other country, to freeze the war on its own terms." pic.twitter.com/ECqZuCle0r
— Disclose.tv (@disclosetv) March 20, 2023
Ok, we lose AZ, NM, TX and Southern CA, Mexico wants to call for peace. You against a peace????
If the people in Arizonia, New Mexico, Texas, and Southern California don't want to be part of the USA anymore....should we bomb, attack, and kill them to keep them in a political union?
A real answer, if you are a fan of Lincoln. Hell yes...
We that is where we just differ.
It is highly immoral to kill vast numbers of people, burn down cities, and make ruthless war on people to keep them in artificial political unions against their will.
The Founding Fathers would be as appalled by your views. They had just fought a war of secession to get out of the United Kingdom.
If in 30 years the people of the American southwest want out...you seem to be fine with the idea of killing them in mass.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Confederation
Or are you talking about the Confederate States of America (The Confederacy)?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_of_America
Then, that is on them.
And of course I defend the right of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and southern California to leave a artificial political union.
What kind of monster would kill people to keep them in a political association?
[Jeff Davis said: "the American idea that governments rest on the consent of the governed, and that is there is the right of the people to alter or abolish them whenever they become destructive to the ends for which they are established." Also, planting a seed for the legitimacy of voluntary government, he said: "A section settled by violence, or in disregard of the law, must remain unsettled forever."]
I guess I am confused in why they would attack the US and expect to not be harmed. Those that want to take US Territory and secede are the aggressors here. You seem to have it backwards. They are welcome as US citizens to live their lives, say what they believe or leave if they choose.
Why are you for being able to take a Nation's territory just because you want it? That seems an extreme position.
What if Mexico does not attack.
What if the people of New Mexico vote to leave the union.
Why should they be prevented from making that decision?
See I would fundamentally disagree.
The U.S. constitution does NOT give the Federal government the power to sell a State to Mexico (or any other country).
And the U.S. Constitution does not give the Federal government the power to attack a State like New Mexico if it votes to leave.
Many people seem to think the USA is a unitary nation state like France or Spain.
That can give its provinces away…but it's provinces can never break off on their own.
We are a Union of Sovereign States. And the Federal government in D.C. has no powers that are not specifically listed and granted to it.
Our secession dispute was decided by force, not US law. The Texas case confirmed the result, but that only means the United States has the final say. If they wanted to negotiate and make a deal, they could. And in any case, it's not up to Russia or the UN to enforce US law.RMF5630 said:Difference is my answer is US Law. No State can decide unilaterally to leave, period. Been decided, actually it was a Texas lawsuit. US Feds can back it up. Try to take Houston and the Ports as an independent State, see how that goes. See how much of the Texas National Guard follows the order from the Governor to take Ft Hood...Sam Lowry said:Ask enough Americans or Texans, and you'll get answers that run the gamut. Just like you'd get a variety of answers from Russians and Ukrainians about their issues. The question isn't what you or I should say in a territorial dispute over Texas. The question is whether Russia should have a say. If you think you have a say in the dispute over Ukraine, by your logic the answer would seem to be yes.RMF5630 said:Don't be coy. You are the one defending Texas or NM leaving the US and we should just say ok...Redbrickbear said:What's the Confederation? Canada?RMF5630 said:So, you are a fan of Jefferson Davis and the Confederation?Redbrickbear said:RMF5630 said:Keep em coming over the border Comrade and we shall see...Redbrickbear said:RMF5630 said:Yeah, tolerate peace when Russia has taken the southern half of Ukraine. Now, that's a real Peace...Doc Holliday said:
This administration will not tolerate peace. Unbelievable.NOW - Blinken: "The world should not be fooled by any tactical move by Russia, supported by China or any other country, to freeze the war on its own terms." pic.twitter.com/ECqZuCle0r
— Disclose.tv (@disclosetv) March 20, 2023
Ok, we lose AZ, NM, TX and Southern CA, Mexico wants to call for peace. You against a peace????
If the people in Arizonia, New Mexico, Texas, and Southern California don't want to be part of the USA anymore....should we bomb, attack, and kill them to keep them in a political union?
A real answer, if you are a fan of Lincoln. Hell yes...
We that is where we just differ.
It is highly immoral to kill vast numbers of people, burn down cities, and make ruthless war on people to keep them in artificial political unions against their will.
The Founding Fathers would be as appalled by your views. They had just fought a war of secession to get out of the United Kingdom.
If in 30 years the people of the American southwest want out...you seem to be fine with the idea of killing them in mass.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Confederation
Or are you talking about the Confederate States of America (The Confederacy)?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_of_America
Then, that is on them.
As for Ukraine, people can't just decide to take Sovereign land and join another Nation. They can leave, but to say because I now live in Crimea I can decide to become part of Russia? Show me a precedent that supports that in any World Court. Or, do laws not matter anymore? Which would be a strange position for an Attorney. Iraq tried it with Kuwait. World and UN matter or nothing matters.
For the record, I don't believe there's a right to secession per se. Secession is a remedy. Its legitimacy depends on how severe and how intractable the grievances are. Since the Confederacy's grievances were mostly about slavery, or at least inextricably bound up with it, it's hard to say secession was justified. That doesn't mean it couldn't be justified in another scenario, or in another country on another continent.
The subparts do not have the right to separate from the whole. There are very few cases with Nations, if any. I am talking Nations, not colonies, where an area annexed to another Nation. Maybe independence? Unfortunately, for Donbas and Crimea they are part of Ukraine as recognized in the 1992 sovereignty agreement. There is not a lot of precedent for splitting, look at Iraq. If ever there was a Nation put together wrong, it was Iraq. Yet, don't see the Kurds being able to leave. If any group has a case for leaving, it is the Kurds. Name one that was not done through the UN, because this one doesn't have the UN's blessing.Sam Lowry said:Our secession dispute was decided by force, not US law. The Texas case confirmed the result, but that only means the United States has the final say. If they wanted to negotiate and make a deal, they could. And in any case, it's not up to Russia or the UN to enforce US law.RMF5630 said:Difference is my answer is US Law. No State can decide unilaterally to leave, period. Been decided, actually it was a Texas lawsuit. US Feds can back it up. Try to take Houston and the Ports as an independent State, see how that goes. See how much of the Texas National Guard follows the order from the Governor to take Ft Hood...Sam Lowry said:Ask enough Americans or Texans, and you'll get answers that run the gamut. Just like you'd get a variety of answers from Russians and Ukrainians about their issues. The question isn't what you or I should say in a territorial dispute over Texas. The question is whether Russia should have a say. If you think you have a say in the dispute over Ukraine, by your logic the answer would seem to be yes.RMF5630 said:Don't be coy. You are the one defending Texas or NM leaving the US and we should just say ok...Redbrickbear said:What's the Confederation? Canada?RMF5630 said:So, you are a fan of Jefferson Davis and the Confederation?Redbrickbear said:RMF5630 said:Keep em coming over the border Comrade and we shall see...Redbrickbear said:RMF5630 said:Yeah, tolerate peace when Russia has taken the southern half of Ukraine. Now, that's a real Peace...Doc Holliday said:
This administration will not tolerate peace. Unbelievable.NOW - Blinken: "The world should not be fooled by any tactical move by Russia, supported by China or any other country, to freeze the war on its own terms." pic.twitter.com/ECqZuCle0r
— Disclose.tv (@disclosetv) March 20, 2023
Ok, we lose AZ, NM, TX and Southern CA, Mexico wants to call for peace. You against a peace????
If the people in Arizonia, New Mexico, Texas, and Southern California don't want to be part of the USA anymore....should we bomb, attack, and kill them to keep them in a political union?
A real answer, if you are a fan of Lincoln. Hell yes...
We that is where we just differ.
It is highly immoral to kill vast numbers of people, burn down cities, and make ruthless war on people to keep them in artificial political unions against their will.
The Founding Fathers would be as appalled by your views. They had just fought a war of secession to get out of the United Kingdom.
If in 30 years the people of the American southwest want out...you seem to be fine with the idea of killing them in mass.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Confederation
Or are you talking about the Confederate States of America (The Confederacy)?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_of_America
Then, that is on them.
As for Ukraine, people can't just decide to take Sovereign land and join another Nation. They can leave, but to say because I now live in Crimea I can decide to become part of Russia? Show me a precedent that supports that in any World Court. Or, do laws not matter anymore? Which would be a strange position for an Attorney. Iraq tried it with Kuwait. World and UN matter or nothing matters.
For the record, I don't believe there's a right to secession per se. Secession is a remedy. Its legitimacy depends on how severe and how intractable the grievances are. Since the Confederacy's grievances were mostly about slavery, or at least inextricably bound up with it, it's hard to say secession was justified. That doesn't mean it couldn't be justified in another scenario, or in another country on another continent.
How about Ukraine? They didn't ask the UN's permission when they seceded from the USSR.RMF5630 said:The subparts do not have the right to separate from the whole. There are very few cases with Nations, if any. I am talking Nations, not colonies, where an area annexed to another Nation. Maybe independence? Unfortunately, for Donbas and Crimea they are part of Ukraine as recognized in the 1992 sovereignty agreement. There is not a lot of precedent for splitting, look at Iraq. If ever there was a Nation put together wrong, it was Iraq. Yet, don't see the Kurds being able to leave. If any group has a case for leaving, it is the Kurds. Name one that was not done through the UN, because this one doesn't have the UN's blessing.Sam Lowry said:Our secession dispute was decided by force, not US law. The Texas case confirmed the result, but that only means the United States has the final say. If they wanted to negotiate and make a deal, they could. And in any case, it's not up to Russia or the UN to enforce US law.RMF5630 said:Difference is my answer is US Law. No State can decide unilaterally to leave, period. Been decided, actually it was a Texas lawsuit. US Feds can back it up. Try to take Houston and the Ports as an independent State, see how that goes. See how much of the Texas National Guard follows the order from the Governor to take Ft Hood...Sam Lowry said:Ask enough Americans or Texans, and you'll get answers that run the gamut. Just like you'd get a variety of answers from Russians and Ukrainians about their issues. The question isn't what you or I should say in a territorial dispute over Texas. The question is whether Russia should have a say. If you think you have a say in the dispute over Ukraine, by your logic the answer would seem to be yes.RMF5630 said:Don't be coy. You are the one defending Texas or NM leaving the US and we should just say ok...Redbrickbear said:What's the Confederation? Canada?RMF5630 said:So, you are a fan of Jefferson Davis and the Confederation?Redbrickbear said:RMF5630 said:Keep em coming over the border Comrade and we shall see...Redbrickbear said:RMF5630 said:Yeah, tolerate peace when Russia has taken the southern half of Ukraine. Now, that's a real Peace...Doc Holliday said:
This administration will not tolerate peace. Unbelievable.NOW - Blinken: "The world should not be fooled by any tactical move by Russia, supported by China or any other country, to freeze the war on its own terms." pic.twitter.com/ECqZuCle0r
— Disclose.tv (@disclosetv) March 20, 2023
Ok, we lose AZ, NM, TX and Southern CA, Mexico wants to call for peace. You against a peace????
If the people in Arizonia, New Mexico, Texas, and Southern California don't want to be part of the USA anymore....should we bomb, attack, and kill them to keep them in a political union?
A real answer, if you are a fan of Lincoln. Hell yes...
We that is where we just differ.
It is highly immoral to kill vast numbers of people, burn down cities, and make ruthless war on people to keep them in artificial political unions against their will.
The Founding Fathers would be as appalled by your views. They had just fought a war of secession to get out of the United Kingdom.
If in 30 years the people of the American southwest want out...you seem to be fine with the idea of killing them in mass.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Confederation
Or are you talking about the Confederate States of America (The Confederacy)?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_of_America
Then, that is on them.
As for Ukraine, people can't just decide to take Sovereign land and join another Nation. They can leave, but to say because I now live in Crimea I can decide to become part of Russia? Show me a precedent that supports that in any World Court. Or, do laws not matter anymore? Which would be a strange position for an Attorney. Iraq tried it with Kuwait. World and UN matter or nothing matters.
For the record, I don't believe there's a right to secession per se. Secession is a remedy. Its legitimacy depends on how severe and how intractable the grievances are. Since the Confederacy's grievances were mostly about slavery, or at least inextricably bound up with it, it's hard to say secession was justified. That doesn't mean it couldn't be justified in another scenario, or in another country on another continent.
The Russians agreed to the boundaries for all the former Soviet Republics. They set the borders! That was agreed upon for all involved. 40 years later you can't say we don't like what we did in the past.Sam Lowry said:How about Ukraine? They didn't ask the UN's permission when they seceded from the USSR.RMF5630 said:The subparts do not have the right to separate from the whole. There are very few cases with Nations, if any. I am talking Nations, not colonies, where an area annexed to another Nation. Maybe independence? Unfortunately, for Donbas and Crimea they are part of Ukraine as recognized in the 1992 sovereignty agreement. There is not a lot of precedent for splitting, look at Iraq. If ever there was a Nation put together wrong, it was Iraq. Yet, don't see the Kurds being able to leave. If any group has a case for leaving, it is the Kurds. Name one that was not done through the UN, because this one doesn't have the UN's blessing.Sam Lowry said:Our secession dispute was decided by force, not US law. The Texas case confirmed the result, but that only means the United States has the final say. If they wanted to negotiate and make a deal, they could. And in any case, it's not up to Russia or the UN to enforce US law.RMF5630 said:Difference is my answer is US Law. No State can decide unilaterally to leave, period. Been decided, actually it was a Texas lawsuit. US Feds can back it up. Try to take Houston and the Ports as an independent State, see how that goes. See how much of the Texas National Guard follows the order from the Governor to take Ft Hood...Sam Lowry said:Ask enough Americans or Texans, and you'll get answers that run the gamut. Just like you'd get a variety of answers from Russians and Ukrainians about their issues. The question isn't what you or I should say in a territorial dispute over Texas. The question is whether Russia should have a say. If you think you have a say in the dispute over Ukraine, by your logic the answer would seem to be yes.RMF5630 said:Don't be coy. You are the one defending Texas or NM leaving the US and we should just say ok...Redbrickbear said:What's the Confederation? Canada?RMF5630 said:So, you are a fan of Jefferson Davis and the Confederation?Redbrickbear said:RMF5630 said:Keep em coming over the border Comrade and we shall see...Redbrickbear said:RMF5630 said:Yeah, tolerate peace when Russia has taken the southern half of Ukraine. Now, that's a real Peace...Doc Holliday said:
This administration will not tolerate peace. Unbelievable.NOW - Blinken: "The world should not be fooled by any tactical move by Russia, supported by China or any other country, to freeze the war on its own terms." pic.twitter.com/ECqZuCle0r
— Disclose.tv (@disclosetv) March 20, 2023
Ok, we lose AZ, NM, TX and Southern CA, Mexico wants to call for peace. You against a peace????
If the people in Arizonia, New Mexico, Texas, and Southern California don't want to be part of the USA anymore....should we bomb, attack, and kill them to keep them in a political union?
A real answer, if you are a fan of Lincoln. Hell yes...
We that is where we just differ.
It is highly immoral to kill vast numbers of people, burn down cities, and make ruthless war on people to keep them in artificial political unions against their will.
The Founding Fathers would be as appalled by your views. They had just fought a war of secession to get out of the United Kingdom.
If in 30 years the people of the American southwest want out...you seem to be fine with the idea of killing them in mass.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Confederation
Or are you talking about the Confederate States of America (The Confederacy)?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_of_America
Then, that is on them.
As for Ukraine, people can't just decide to take Sovereign land and join another Nation. They can leave, but to say because I now live in Crimea I can decide to become part of Russia? Show me a precedent that supports that in any World Court. Or, do laws not matter anymore? Which would be a strange position for an Attorney. Iraq tried it with Kuwait. World and UN matter or nothing matters.
For the record, I don't believe there's a right to secession per se. Secession is a remedy. Its legitimacy depends on how severe and how intractable the grievances are. Since the Confederacy's grievances were mostly about slavery, or at least inextricably bound up with it, it's hard to say secession was justified. That doesn't mean it couldn't be justified in another scenario, or in another country on another continent.
Ukraine seceded before the USSR was dissolved. But you're right, it was all agreed to at some point or another. There's no reason they couldn't do the same with Crimea or the Donbas.RMF5630 said:The Russians agreed to the boundaries for all the former Soviet Republics. %A0They set the borders! %A0That was agreed upon for all involved. %A040 years later you can't say we don't like what we did in the past. %A0Sam Lowry said:How about Ukraine? They didn't ask the UN's permission when they seceded from the USSR.RMF5630 said:The subparts do not have the right to separate from the whole. %A0There are very few cases with Nations, if any. %A0I am talking Nations, not colonies, where an area annexed to another Nation. Maybe independence? %A0Unfortunately, for Donbas and Crimea they are part of Ukraine as recognized in the 1992 sovereignty agreement. There is not a lot of precedent for splitting, look at Iraq. If ever there was a Nation put together wrong, it was Iraq. %A0Yet, don't see the Kurds being able to leave. If any group has a case for leaving, it is the Kurds. %A0Name one that was not done through the UN, because this one doesn't have the UN's blessing.Sam Lowry said:Our secession dispute was decided by force, not US law. The Texas case confirmed the result, but that only means the United States has the final say. If they wanted to negotiate and make a deal, they could. And in any case, it's not up to Russia or the UN to enforce US law.RMF5630 said:Difference is my answer is US Law. %A0No State can decide unilaterally to leave, period. %A0Been decided, actually it was a Texas lawsuit. US Feds can back it up. %A0 Try to take Houston and the Ports as an independent State, see how that goes. See how much of the Texas National Guard follows the order from the Governor to take Ft Hood...Sam Lowry said:Ask enough Americans or Texans, and you'll get answers that run the gamut. Just like you'd get a variety of answers from Russians and Ukrainians about their issues. The question isn't what you or I should say in a territorial dispute over Texas. The question is whether Russia should have a say. If you think you have a say in the dispute over Ukraine, by your logic the answer would seem to be yes.RMF5630 said:Don't be coy. %A0You are the one defending Texas or NM leaving the US and we should just say ok...Redbrickbear said:What's the Confederation? %A0Canada?RMF5630 said:So, you are a fan of Jefferson Davis and the Confederation? %A0Redbrickbear said:RMF5630 said:Keep em coming over the border Comrade and we shall see...Redbrickbear said:RMF5630 said:Yeah, tolerate peace when Russia has taken the southern half of Ukraine. %A0Now, that's a real Peace...Doc Holliday said:
This administration will not tolerate peace. Unbelievable.NOW - Blinken: "The world should not be fooled by any tactical move by Russia, supported by China or any other country, to freeze the war on its own terms." pic.twitter.com/ECqZuCle0r
— Disclose.tv (@disclosetv) March 20, 2023
Ok, we lose AZ, NM, TX and Southern CA, Mexico wants to call for peace. %A0You against a peace????
If the people in Arizonia, New Mexico, Texas, and Southern California don't want to be part of the USA anymore....should we bomb, attack, and kill them to keep them in a political union?
A real answer, if you are a fan of Lincoln. %A0Hell yes...
We that is where we just differ.
It is highly immoral to kill vast numbers of people, burn down cities, and make ruthless war on people to keep them in artificial political unions against their will.
The Founding Fathers would be as appalled by your views. %A0They had just fought a war of secession to get out of the United Kingdom.
If in 30 years the people of the American southwest want out...you seem to be fine with the idea of killing them in mass.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Confederation
Or are you talking about the Confederate States of America (The Confederacy)?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_of_America
Then, that is on them. %A0
As for Ukraine, people can't just decide to take Sovereign land and join another Nation. They can leave, but to say because I now live in Crimea I can decide to become part of Russia? %A0Show me a precedent that supports that in any World Court. Or, do laws not matter anymore? Which would be a strange position for an Attorney. %A0Iraq tried it with Kuwait. %A0World and UN matter or nothing matters. %A0
For the record, I don't believe there's a right to secession per se. Secession is a remedy. Its legitimacy depends on how severe and how intractable the grievances are. Since the Confederacy's grievances were mostly about slavery, or at least inextricably bound up with it, it's hard to say secession was justified. That doesn't mean it couldn't be justified in another scenario, or in another country on another continent.
Sam Lowry said:Ukraine seceded before the USSR was dissolved. But you're right, it was all agreed to at some point or another. There's no reason they couldn't do the same with Crimea or the Donbas.RMF5630 said:The Russians agreed to the boundaries for all the former Soviet Republics. %A0They set the borders! %A0That was agreed upon for all involved. %A040 years later you can't say we don't like what we did in the past. %A0Sam Lowry said:How about Ukraine? They didn't ask the UN's permission when they seceded from the USSR.RMF5630 said:The subparts do not have the right to separate from the whole. %A0There are very few cases with Nations, if any. %A0I am talking Nations, not colonies, where an area annexed to another Nation. Maybe independence? %A0Unfortunately, for Donbas and Crimea they are part of Ukraine as recognized in the 1992 sovereignty agreement. There is not a lot of precedent for splitting, look at Iraq. If ever there was a Nation put together wrong, it was Iraq. %A0Yet, don't see the Kurds being able to leave. If any group has a case for leaving, it is the Kurds. %A0Name one that was not done through the UN, because this one doesn't have the UN's blessing.Sam Lowry said:Our secession dispute was decided by force, not US law. The Texas case confirmed the result, but that only means the United States has the final say. If they wanted to negotiate and make a deal, they could. And in any case, it's not up to Russia or the UN to enforce US law.RMF5630 said:Difference is my answer is US Law. %A0No State can decide unilaterally to leave, period. %A0Been decided, actually it was a Texas lawsuit. US Feds can back it up. %A0 Try to take Houston and the Ports as an independent State, see how that goes. See how much of the Texas National Guard follows the order from the Governor to take Ft Hood...Sam Lowry said:Ask enough Americans or Texans, and you'll get answers that run the gamut. Just like you'd get a variety of answers from Russians and Ukrainians about their issues. The question isn't what you or I should say in a territorial dispute over Texas. The question is whether Russia should have a say. If you think you have a say in the dispute over Ukraine, by your logic the answer would seem to be yes.RMF5630 said:Don't be coy. %A0You are the one defending Texas or NM leaving the US and we should just say ok...Redbrickbear said:What's the Confederation? %A0Canada?RMF5630 said:So, you are a fan of Jefferson Davis and the Confederation? %A0Redbrickbear said:RMF5630 said:Keep em coming over the border Comrade and we shall see...Redbrickbear said:RMF5630 said:Yeah, tolerate peace when Russia has taken the southern half of Ukraine. %A0Now, that's a real Peace...Doc Holliday said:
This administration will not tolerate peace. Unbelievable.NOW - Blinken: "The world should not be fooled by any tactical move by Russia, supported by China or any other country, to freeze the war on its own terms." pic.twitter.com/ECqZuCle0r
— Disclose.tv (@disclosetv) March 20, 2023
Ok, we lose AZ, NM, TX and Southern CA, Mexico wants to call for peace. %A0You against a peace????
If the people in Arizonia, New Mexico, Texas, and Southern California don't want to be part of the USA anymore....should we bomb, attack, and kill them to keep them in a political union?
A real answer, if you are a fan of Lincoln. %A0Hell yes...
We that is where we just differ.
It is highly immoral to kill vast numbers of people, burn down cities, and make ruthless war on people to keep them in artificial political unions against their will.
The Founding Fathers would be as appalled by your views. %A0They had just fought a war of secession to get out of the United Kingdom.
If in 30 years the people of the American southwest want out...you seem to be fine with the idea of killing them in mass.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Confederation
Or are you talking about the Confederate States of America (The Confederacy)?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_of_America
Then, that is on them. %A0
As for Ukraine, people can't just decide to take Sovereign land and join another Nation. They can leave, but to say because I now live in Crimea I can decide to become part of Russia? %A0Show me a precedent that supports that in any World Court. Or, do laws not matter anymore? Which would be a strange position for an Attorney. %A0Iraq tried it with Kuwait. %A0World and UN matter or nothing matters. %A0
For the record, I don't believe there's a right to secession per se. Secession is a remedy. Its legitimacy depends on how severe and how intractable the grievances are. Since the Confederacy's grievances were mostly about slavery, or at least inextricably bound up with it, it's hard to say secession was justified. That doesn't mean it couldn't be justified in another scenario, or in another country on another continent.
But Ukraine wants its port and ag region. Just because somebody wants it to happen doesn't mean it should. It is Ukraines call, not Russia.
And not ours.RMF5630 said:Sam Lowry said:Ukraine seceded before the USSR was dissolved. But you're right, it was all agreed to at some point or another. There's no reason they couldn't do the same with Crimea or the Donbas.RMF5630 said:The Russians agreed to the boundaries for all the former Soviet Republics. %A0They set the borders! %A0That was agreed upon for all involved. %A040 years later you can't say we don't like what we did in the past. %A0Sam Lowry said:How about Ukraine? They didn't ask the UN's permission when they seceded from the USSR.RMF5630 said:The subparts do not have the right to separate from the whole. %A0There are very few cases with Nations, if any. %A0I am talking Nations, not colonies, where an area annexed to another Nation. Maybe independence? %A0Unfortunately, for Donbas and Crimea they are part of Ukraine as recognized in the 1992 sovereignty agreement. There is not a lot of precedent for splitting, look at Iraq. If ever there was a Nation put together wrong, it was Iraq. %A0Yet, don't see the Kurds being able to leave. If any group has a case for leaving, it is the Kurds. %A0Name one that was not done through the UN, because this one doesn't have the UN's blessing.Sam Lowry said:Our secession dispute was decided by force, not US law. The Texas case confirmed the result, but that only means the United States has the final say. If they wanted to negotiate and make a deal, they could. And in any case, it's not up to Russia or the UN to enforce US law.RMF5630 said:Difference is my answer is US Law. %A0No State can decide unilaterally to leave, period. %A0Been decided, actually it was a Texas lawsuit. US Feds can back it up. %A0 Try to take Houston and the Ports as an independent State, see how that goes. See how much of the Texas National Guard follows the order from the Governor to take Ft Hood...Sam Lowry said:Ask enough Americans or Texans, and you'll get answers that run the gamut. Just like you'd get a variety of answers from Russians and Ukrainians about their issues. The question isn't what you or I should say in a territorial dispute over Texas. The question is whether Russia should have a say. If you think you have a say in the dispute over Ukraine, by your logic the answer would seem to be yes.RMF5630 said:Don't be coy. %A0You are the one defending Texas or NM leaving the US and we should just say ok...Redbrickbear said:What's the Confederation? %A0Canada?RMF5630 said:So, you are a fan of Jefferson Davis and the Confederation? %A0Redbrickbear said:RMF5630 said:Keep em coming over the border Comrade and we shall see...Redbrickbear said:RMF5630 said:Yeah, tolerate peace when Russia has taken the southern half of Ukraine. %A0Now, that's a real Peace...Doc Holliday said:
This administration will not tolerate peace. Unbelievable.NOW - Blinken: "The world should not be fooled by any tactical move by Russia, supported by China or any other country, to freeze the war on its own terms." pic.twitter.com/ECqZuCle0r
— Disclose.tv (@disclosetv) March 20, 2023
Ok, we lose AZ, NM, TX and Southern CA, Mexico wants to call for peace. %A0You against a peace????
If the people in Arizonia, New Mexico, Texas, and Southern California don't want to be part of the USA anymore....should we bomb, attack, and kill them to keep them in a political union?
A real answer, if you are a fan of Lincoln. %A0Hell yes...
We that is where we just differ.
It is highly immoral to kill vast numbers of people, burn down cities, and make ruthless war on people to keep them in artificial political unions against their will.
The Founding Fathers would be as appalled by your views. %A0They had just fought a war of secession to get out of the United Kingdom.
If in 30 years the people of the American southwest want out...you seem to be fine with the idea of killing them in mass.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Confederation
Or are you talking about the Confederate States of America (The Confederacy)?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_of_America
Then, that is on them. %A0
As for Ukraine, people can't just decide to take Sovereign land and join another Nation. They can leave, but to say because I now live in Crimea I can decide to become part of Russia? %A0Show me a precedent that supports that in any World Court. Or, do laws not matter anymore? Which would be a strange position for an Attorney. %A0Iraq tried it with Kuwait. %A0World and UN matter or nothing matters. %A0
For the record, I don't believe there's a right to secession per se. Secession is a remedy. Its legitimacy depends on how severe and how intractable the grievances are. Since the Confederacy's grievances were mostly about slavery, or at least inextricably bound up with it, it's hard to say secession was justified. That doesn't mean it couldn't be justified in another scenario, or in another country on another continent.
But Ukraine wants its port and ag region. Just because somebody wants it to happen doesn't mean it should. It is Ukraines call, not Russia.
that part in bold is exactly what Russia is doing......Redbrickbear said:RMF5630 said:Keep em coming over the border Comrade and we shall see...Redbrickbear said:RMF5630 said:Yeah, tolerate peace when Russia has taken the southern half of Ukraine. Now, that's a real Peace...Doc Holliday said:
This administration will not tolerate peace. Unbelievable.NOW - Blinken: "The world should not be fooled by any tactical move by Russia, supported by China or any other country, to freeze the war on its own terms." pic.twitter.com/ECqZuCle0r
— Disclose.tv (@disclosetv) March 20, 2023
Ok, we lose AZ, NM, TX and Southern CA, Mexico wants to call for peace. You against a peace????
If the people in Arizonia, New Mexico, Texas, and Southern California don't want to be part of the USA anymore....should we bomb, attack, and kill them to keep them in a political union?
A real answer, if you are a fan of Lincoln. Hell yes...
We that is where we just differ.
It is highly immoral to kill vast numbers of people, burn down cities, and make ruthless war on people to keep them in artificial political unions against their will.
The Founding Fathers would be as appalled by your views. They had just fought a war of secession to get out of the United Kingdom.
If in 30 years the people of the American southwest want out...you seem to be fine with the idea of killing them in mass.
Yet many want to limit our support for Ukraine, which is highly motivated to fight, on the irrational fear that if Ukraine were to lose we would be obligated (or unable to resist the temptation) to commit US troops to the war.