Schedule vote for say March 25th.
Make it look like they're definitely gonna be in.
Mobilize 150K - 200K US & NATO troops in preparation in the meantime.
Maybe that'll get Poopootie to back off.
==

They already filed for emergency application. Haven't heard anything since. I think 2 other countries on the fence about NATO have filed as well.

---

********************************************
“A sword never kills anybody; it is a tool in the killer's hand.” Seneca the Younger

The police have no duty to respond. See Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005) or Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981)

Judge Lee wrote that “we cannot jettison our constitutional rights, even if the goal behind a law is laudable." 9th Circuit Court of Appeals

[www.youtube.com]

Article 8 makes it complicated. But NATO can invite Ukraine to join.

Quote
Buzz
Maybe that'll get Poopootie to back off.

Because he's such a reasonable guy.

I'm curious about their application to the EU.

Right now, they're a provisional "partner" and "candidate."

They've requested fast-tracking, but there's no fast-track laid out in the rules. 27 nations have to agree to let them in. It usually takes years, might take decades in the ordinary course.

---

I am so glad Buzz is not President

Search out an interview with Johnathon Swan and the UN boss that was taped just before the war was imminent. It will explain a lot. UN is essentially chickenshit. THey say that they want Ukraine to join, but they don't want the responsibility that comes with it.

From last week:
Washington (AFP) – President Volodymyr Zelensky said he is no longer pressing for NATO membership for Ukraine, a delicate issue that was one of Russia's stated reasons for invading its pro-Western neighbor.

In another apparent nod aimed at placating Moscow, Zelensky said he is open to "compromise" on the status of two breakaway pro-Russian territories that President Vladimir Putin recognized as independent just before unleashing the invasion on February 24.

"I have cooled down regarding this question a long time ago after we understood that ... NATO is not prepared to accept Ukraine," Zelensky said in an interview aired Monday night on ABC News.
[www.france24.com]


Various articles since before Russia's invasion have said that NATO is not prepared to admit Ukraine any time soon.

NATO does not want to be in the business of defending the former Soviet countries that Putin wants back. They formed to defend Western Europe only.

you say nato, I say potato

---

!#$@@$#!

proofraed by OwEn the c@t.

Quote
hal
I am so glad Buzz is not President

If I were President, I woulda had black ops/ST6 take out Pootie twenty years ago; he's been a bucket of horsepucky since day one.
==

As best I can tell there's no difference between admitting Ukraine to NATO and NATO going to war with Russia. IMO the main thing holding countries back is the cost benefit analysis. Nobody wants to pay that cost (yet)....and to be fair, the most difficult part to justify the loss of life.

---

Quote
Buzz

Quote
hal
I am so glad Buzz is not President

If I were President, I woulda had black ops/ST6 take out Pootie twenty years ago; he's been a bucket of horsepucky since day one.
==

It's entirely possible that they've tried and can't get to him... It also does set a terrible precedent globally. Although I did like the idea that if Russia has Zelenskyy assassinated that the Mossad might avenge him.

---

g=



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/14/2022 02:09PM by gabester.

Quote
gabester

Quote
Buzz

Quote
hal
I am so glad Buzz is not President

If I were President, I woulda had black ops/ST6 take out Pootie twenty years ago; he's been a bucket of horsepucky since day one.
==

It's entirely possible that they've tried and can't get to him... It also does set a terrible precedent globally. Although I did like the idea that if Russia has Zelenskyy assassinated that the Mossad might avenge him.

That's exactly what I said when Pootie first put put out a hit on Zelensky.

Pootie is long overdue for an industrial "accident".
==

2x what Buzz says. and not quietly. so that other mfj's get the idea and wake the f'k up.

---

!#$@@$#!

proofraed by OwEn the c@t.

Iran lost a top official to US state sponsored assassination, former SoS Pompeo now lives under 24/7 security costing $2 million a month to keep Iran from retaliating.

This is the sort of can of worms awaiting once you employ assassination as a tool.

Quote
RgrF
Iran lost a top official to US state sponsored assassination, former SoS Pompeo now lives under 24/7 security costing $2 million a month to keep Iran from retaliating.

This is the sort of can of worms awaiting once you employ assassination as a tool.

I saw that the other day. I hate that it is costing so much to protect that toad.
I can’t say I feel too bad that he has to always be looking over his shoulder though.

---

Roswell, GA (Atlanta suburb)

Quote
RgrF
Iran lost a top official to US state sponsored assassination, former SoS Pompeo now lives under 24/7 security costing $2 million a month to keep Iran from retaliating.

This is the sort of can of worms awaiting once you employ assassination as a tool.

I'm not talking US state sponsored assassination; more like an "industrial accident" that tracks back to Syria, or some other nation Pootie's pissed off.
Pompeo's on the naughty list, so that's way too many tax dollars spent protecting him; send him to live w/ the Orange Menace at Mar=a=Lago.
==

Today there was some attack near Poland, a NATO country. That's all it will take.

There is an Executive Order preventing the assassination of a leader of a country. Any order would be illegal, and the Ops team would be obligated to ignore it.

However, there might be volunteers.

---

********************************************
“A sword never kills anybody; it is a tool in the killer's hand.” Seneca the Younger

The police have no duty to respond. See Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005) or Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981)

Judge Lee wrote that “we cannot jettison our constitutional rights, even if the goal behind a law is laudable." 9th Circuit Court of Appeals

[www.youtube.com]

I've spent more time thinking about this sort of thing than I care to admit and I've come to the conclusion that stroke or heart attack would work just fine.

Quote
Racer X
There is an Executive Order preventing the assassination of a leader of a country. Any order would be illegal, and the Ops team would be obligated to ignore it...

Sure. No American soldiers. Gotcha. But that doesn't mean we don't do the ol' coups d’état by U.S. trained militias or sponsor it.

The Biden administration is old-school. And that means African and South/Central American AND various Island governments are his to topple by any means, including assassination. (Old school, but 45 never bothered to change that policy.)

It simply doesn't make headlines anymore. Like what we did in Africa recently. Or Haiti.

Apparently, our Columbian and Syrian soldiers, and Blackwater/Greystone don't have to follow the Constitution or American laws. So, the Constitutionality of one of those orders wouldn't come into question because the "soldiers" wouldn't be in the formal armed forces and wouldn't think to question it.

Mind you, I am simply examining the issue and not making a recommendation.

---

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/14/2022 06:52PM by Tiangou.

Quote
Tiangou

Quote
Racer X
There is an Executive Order preventing the assassination of a leader of a country. Any order would be illegal, and the Ops team would be obligated to ignore it...

Sure. No American soldiers. Gotcha. But that doesn't mean we don't do the ol' coups d’état by U.S. trained militias or sponsor it.

The Biden administration is old-school. And that means African and South/Central American AND various Island governments are his to topple by any means, including assassination. (Old school, but 45 never bothered to change that policy.)

It simply doesn't make headlines anymore. Like what we did in Africa recently. Or Haiti.

Apparently, our Columbian and Syrian soldiers, and Blackwater/Greystone don't have to follow the Constitution or American laws. So, the Constitutionality of one of those orders wouldn't come into question because the "soldiers" wouldn't be in the formal armed forces and wouldn't think to question it.

Mind you, I am simply examining the issue and not making a recommendation.

Oh, sure. But if the news got out...........

Grey Ghost/The Activity (CIA Tier 1 operatives) could easily find some contractors to do the job.

There are 3 US Tier one groups, Seal Team 6, Delta and the CIA Grey Ghost/The Activity group. CIA group is usually Team 6 and Delta guys, and some other specialists seconded to the CIA, or are "retired"

---

********************************************
“A sword never kills anybody; it is a tool in the killer's hand.” Seneca the Younger

The police have no duty to respond. See Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005) or Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981)

Judge Lee wrote that “we cannot jettison our constitutional rights, even if the goal behind a law is laudable." 9th Circuit Court of Appeals

[www.youtube.com]

where's Derek Flint when you need him?

---

!#$@@$#!

proofraed by OwEn the c@t.

Buzz tryin' to get us all nuked.

If we give Putin the idea that we will avoid conflict due to the threat of nuclear war, he'll just keep rolling (and why shouldn't he?). As far as the threat of him using nuclear goes, what changes when he invades a NATO country? The threat is still there, right? So, do we just continue to let him do what he wants no matter what?

Bottom line is we need to do a frick ton more to help Ukraine. It should have happened immediately, but the longer we wait, the worse it will be.

"NATO does not want to be in the business of defending the former Soviet countries that Putin wants back. They formed to defend Western Europe only."

I don't understand what you mean by this. Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia are all Eastern European countries formerly part of the Soviet Union. Several other NATO members aren't part of Europe at all. My understanding is that France and Germany both believed Ukraine was far too Russian sympathetic, which I think has clearly been shown not to be the case. They should have been part of NATO, in hindsight.

Quote
kj
If we give Putin the idea that we will avoid conflict due to the threat of nuclear war, he'll just keep rolling (and why shouldn't he?). As far as the threat of him using nuclear goes, what changes when he invades a NATO country? The threat is still there, right? So, do we just continue to let him do what he wants no matter what?

Bottom line is we need to do a frick ton more to help Ukraine. It should have happened immediately, but the longer we wait, the worse it will be.

"NATO does not want to be in the business of defending the former Soviet countries that Putin wants back. They formed to defend Western Europe only."

I don't understand what you mean by this. Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia are all Eastern European countries formerly part of the Soviet Union. Several other NATO members aren't part of Europe at all. My understanding is that France and Germany both believed Ukraine was far too Russian sympathetic, which I think has clearly been shown not to be the case. They should have been part of NATO, in hindsight.

Too late now.

We failed Ukraine in 2016 in one day. We destroyed it on that day. We should never forget that.

Quote
kj
If we give Putin the idea that we will avoid conflict due to the threat of nuclear war, he'll just keep rolling (and why shouldn't he?). As far as the threat of him using nuclear goes, what changes when he invades a NATO country? The threat is still there, right? So, do we just continue to let him do what he wants no matter what?

Bottom line is we need to do a frick ton more to help Ukraine. It should have happened immediately, but the longer we wait, the worse it will be.

"NATO does not want to be in the business of defending the former Soviet countries that Putin wants back. They formed to defend Western Europe only."

I don't understand what you mean by this. Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia are all Eastern European countries formerly part of the Soviet Union. Several other NATO members aren't part of Europe at all. My understanding is that France and Germany both believed Ukraine was far too Russian sympathetic, which I think has clearly been shown not to be the case. They should have been part of NATO, in hindsight.

..."that Putin wants back." That's the key part of the sentence. Putin has not expressed interest in invading any of those countries. But he's always wanted Ukraine back.

The reasons that Ukraine is not in NATO have mostly to do with Ukraine not wanting to be in NATO. Both the government and public opinion were against it until Russia started getting aggressive in the region.
Don't blame this on Germany and France.
[en.m.wikipedia.org]

So, does Pootie need to be knocked on his ass?
Or just be allowed to continue to threaten nukes and get away w/ whatever he wants?
I vote the former.
==

Buzz is gonna go to Moscow and punch Putin in the face just like Joe Rogen!

Hey we're talking nukes here so it's time for compromise, I vote Buzz tracks down and punches Joe Rogen in the face.

Sadly, I ain't punching nobody in the face no more.... I can't lift my right arm, much less punch with it, and while I can lift my left arm, I can't close my left hand, so I'm SOL in the punching dept.... But, I can hold a pistol in my right hand, and lift it w/ my left, so shootin's still OK. Last time at the range a few years ago, the .38+P loads, and a couple of hot 9mm loads were on the cusp of being tough to handle, so no .357's, but the .380 was fine, so y'all can sign me up for that. No kickin' either BTW, but I'm not above bashing ne'er-do-well's shins w/ my heavy duty (mostly steel) walker until they beg for mercy.

And then there's those pesky nukes.
==

Quote
Lemon Drop

Quote
kj
If we give Putin the idea that we will avoid conflict due to the threat of nuclear war, he'll just keep rolling (and why shouldn't he?). As far as the threat of him using nuclear goes, what changes when he invades a NATO country? The threat is still there, right? So, do we just continue to let him do what he wants no matter what?

Bottom line is we need to do a frick ton more to help Ukraine. It should have happened immediately, but the longer we wait, the worse it will be.

"NATO does not want to be in the business of defending the former Soviet countries that Putin wants back. They formed to defend Western Europe only."

I don't understand what you mean by this. Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia are all Eastern European countries formerly part of the Soviet Union. Several other NATO members aren't part of Europe at all. My understanding is that France and Germany both believed Ukraine was far too Russian sympathetic, which I think has clearly been shown not to be the case. They should have been part of NATO, in hindsight.

..."that Putin wants back." That's the key part of the sentence. Putin has not expressed interest in invading any of those countries. But he's always wanted Ukraine back.

The reasons that Ukraine is not in NATO have mostly to do with Ukraine not wanting to be in NATO. Both the government and public opinion were against it until Russia started getting aggressive in the region.
Don't blame this on Germany and France.
[en.m.wikipedia.org]

You said, "the former Soviet countries". Which countries did you mean? Or do you consider Ukraine more than one country?

You also said, "They formed to defend Western Europe only." This is not true at all.

"The reasons that Ukraine is not in NATO have mostly to do with Ukraine not wanting to be in NATO."

They've solidly wanted into NATO since 2014. They have not done everything they need to to get into NATO, and there had been concerns about stability, but I've read numerous articles where experts say a large "unwritten" reason is economic ties of some European nations with Russia, who has super opposed Ukranian membership. Because France and Germany previously voted not to admit Ukraine into NATO, I think they are the nations most concerned with economic ties to Russia.

It doesn't matter though. There is no reason not to do more to help Ukraine resist Russia. Our weapons are already killing Russian soldiers, so I fail to see how more weapons makes any further difference. Letting him have the Ukraine makes Putin more likely to think we're weak, and lets be honest, we are behaving in a weak fashion. He's going to take advantage of that, and eventually we will have to do more. In the mean time, really bad things are happening, and we're acting like the America First crowd.

The way this going for Russia, it won't have the hardware left to take on anyone else nor the money to get new hardware. Manpower in Ukraine is fast approaching the 10% loss mark which means those units have been decimated (using the Roman definition) and are no longer combat effective.

Russia is going to come out of this a shell of its former self with limited resources to do anything about it (unless the west lifts sanctions). China will just laugh at them - they have seen the only superpower that shares a border with them removed from the equation without doing a thing.

---

“No persons are more frequently wrong, than those who will not admit they are wrong.” -- François de La Rochefoucauld

"Those who cannot accept the past are condemned to revise it." -- Geo. Mathias

The German word for contraceptive is “Schwangerschaftsverhütungsmittel”. By the time you finished saying that, it’s too late

I hope you're right, but I feel like he is going to take Ukraine eventually. They have no way to attack, only defend, and Russia will just keep bombing until it's done. Once they take Ukraine, they have time to regroup. No reason they have to hit anything else immediately, except that Putin is getting old. Are we sure that's all the military capability he has? I haven't seen any indications otherwise, but I wonder.

There are credible people who are arguing we need to confront Putin:

[www.economist.com]

Quote
kj

Quote
Lemon Drop

Quote
kj
If we give Putin the idea that we will avoid conflict due to the threat of nuclear war, he'll just keep rolling (and why shouldn't he?). As far as the threat of him using nuclear goes, what changes when he invades a NATO country? The threat is still there, right? So, do we just continue to let him do what he wants no matter what?

Bottom line is we need to do a frick ton more to help Ukraine. It should have happened immediately, but the longer we wait, the worse it will be.

"NATO does not want to be in the business of defending the former Soviet countries that Putin wants back. They formed to defend Western Europe only."

I don't understand what you mean by this. Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia are all Eastern European countries formerly part of the Soviet Union. Several other NATO members aren't part of Europe at all. My understanding is that France and Germany both believed Ukraine was far too Russian sympathetic, which I think has clearly been shown not to be the case. They should have been part of NATO, in hindsight.

..."that Putin wants back." That's the key part of the sentence. Putin has not expressed interest in invading any of those countries. But he's always wanted Ukraine back.

The reasons that Ukraine is not in NATO have mostly to do with Ukraine not wanting to be in NATO. Both the government and public opinion were against it until Russia started getting aggressive in the region.
Don't blame this on Germany and France.
[en.m.wikipedia.org]

You said, "the former Soviet countries". Which countries did you mean? Or do you consider Ukraine more than one country?

You also said, "They formed to defend Western Europe only." This is not true at all.

"The reasons that Ukraine is not in NATO have mostly to do with Ukraine not wanting to be in NATO."

They've solidly wanted into NATO since 2014. They have not done everything they need to to get into NATO, and there had been concerns about stability, but I've read numerous articles where experts say a large "unwritten" reason is economic ties of some European nations with Russia, who has super opposed Ukranian membership. Because France and Germany previously voted not to admit Ukraine into NATO, I think they are the nations most concerned with economic ties to Russia.

It doesn't matter though. There is no reason not to do more to help Ukraine resist Russia. Our weapons are already killing Russian soldiers, so I fail to see how more weapons makes any further difference. Letting him have the Ukraine makes Putin more likely to think we're weak, and lets be honest, we are behaving in a weak fashion. He's going to take advantage of that, and eventually we will have to do more. In the mean time, really bad things are happening, and we're acting like the America First crowd.

I think we are saying the same thing about NATO and Ukraine, but are referencing different points in history.

I was speaking about why NATO formed in the 40s. At that time the eastern countries you list were not in NATO, they joined decades later after the fall of the Soviet Union.
New NATO membership now is only for European countries for their mutual defense.

Of course charter members USA and Canada are not in Europe. But Mexico could not join if it wanted to.

Yes, NOW Ukraine wants to join NATO. But in 2010 when the invitation was there, the government and people were strongly opposed. They thought they could be safely autonomous and not aligned with either side. Mistake in hindsight? Sure. They had a chance they passed over that would have protected them from Putin's aggression. Kinda late to buy that insurance policy.

how dare you call the Un - "chickenshit".
The 5h1t of chickens are offended!

"Russia is going to come out of this a shell of its former self with limited resources to do anything about it (unless the west lifts sanctions). China will just laugh at them - they have seen the only superpower that shares a border with them removed from the equation without doing a thing."

yup. and hopefully that won't happen until the poo is flushed.

but it doesn't change what the goal should be for the west.
"Impeachment" of the poo.
Then I'd think we'd have but 2 (major) terrorists left.
Kim Dung Loon and the Clown Prick.

---

!#$@@$#!

proofraed by OwEn the c@t.





Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/19/2022 11:26AM by Fritz.