Here's A Hypothetical That Is More Than A Hypothetical

[Edgetho]

We know, or should know, that Kim Jong Un is a threat to World Peace. In fact, I have predicted that if a WW3 ever starts, it will be a Nork Nuke that detonates in the Upper Atmosphere, blinding our satellites.... (EMP) . And them swearing to Marx it was a mistake!

We also know that Iran is a serious threat to World Peace due to its race to arm itself with Nukes and it's hatred of -- Everything and Everybody...

In 1994, The USA and Russia signed an agreement that promised security for Ukraine if they would give up their Nuclear weapons. The magnitude of which dwarfed anything the Norks or the Mullahs could ever hope to achieve.

If Kim or Khamanei were to ask the people of Ukraine what they thought about the agreement they signed, the one that guaranteed their security -- What do you think The People (don't care about the leaders) of Ukraine would say about that?

Anybody?

Budapest Memorandum - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[martybegan]

We know, or should know, that Kim Jong Un is a threat to World Peace. In fact, I have predicted that if a WW3 ever starts, it will be a Nork Nuke that detonates in the Upper Atmosphere, blinding our satellites.... (EMP) . And them swearing to Marx it was a mistake!

We also know that Iran is a serious threat to World Peace due to its race to arm itself with Nukes and it's hatred of -- Everything and Everybody...

In 1994, The USA and Russia signed an agreement that promised security for Ukraine if they would give up their Nuclear weapons. The magnitude of which dwarfed anything the Norks or the Mullahs could ever hope to achieve.

If Kim or Khamanei were to ask the people of Ukraine what they thought about the agreement they signed, the one that guaranteed their security -- What do you think The People (don't care about the leaders) of Ukraine would say about that?

Anybody?

Budapest Memorandum - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The problem is that memorandum was never presented as a treaty for ratification. So it's basically worthless.

 

[Edgetho]

The problem is that memorandum was never presented as a treaty for ratification. So it's basically worthless.

We've agreed to much more serious security arrangements without Senate Approval. Post WW2 Germany and Japan, IIRC. Maybe Taiwan. How about Canada? Do we have a Senate approved mutual-defense pact with them? Don't know.

But you are grasping, here

 

[martybegan]

We've agreed to much more serious security arrangements without Senate Approval. Post WW2 Germany and Japan, IIRC. Maybe Taiwan. How about Canada? Do we have a Senate approved mutual-defense pact with them? Don't know.

But you are grasping, here

I'm not grasping. The Budapest Memorandum was big on words, small on details on what would happen if Russia decided to ignore it.

It's similar to the Locarno treaties that were all shit on right at the start of WWII, and the German-Soviet non aggression pact.

The US has been ignoring the requirement for treaties to be ratified in general, and that needs to change.

 

[kyzr]

I'm not grasping. The Budapest Memorandum was big on words, small on details on what would happen if Russia decided to ignore it.
It's similar to the Locarno treaties that were all shit on right at the start of WWII, and the German-Soviet non aggression pact.
The US has been ignoring the requirement for treaties to be ratified in general, and that needs to change.

All Treaties are sheets of paper. Its a matter of how the violator is treated, treaties need "teeth", when the US signs something its supposed to have enforcement implied/included.

 

[Edgetho]

I'm not grasping. The Budapest Memorandum was big on words, small on details on what would happen if Russia decided to ignore it.

It's similar to the Locarno treaties that were all shit on right at the start of WWII, and the German-Soviet non aggression pact.

The US has been ignoring the requirement for treaties to be ratified in general, and that needs to change.

They're called "Executive Agreements" and we've been doing it since our founding. Nothing wrong with them.

Sometimes, Foreign Leaders aren't in the mood to wait several years for all the empty-suits to make up their minds and need it down NOW.

When our words stops meaning anything, the world becomes a much less safe place.

 

[Edgetho]

In recent decades, presidents have frequently entered the United States into international agreements without the advice and consent of the Senate. These are called "executive agreements." Though not brought before the Senate for approval, executive agreements are still binding on the parties under international law.

About Treaties - U.S. Senate​

U.S. Senate: About Treaties

www.senate.gov

 

[martybegan]

They're called "Executive Agreements" and we've been doing it since our founding. Nothing wrong with them.

Sometimes, Foreign Leaders aren't in the mood to wait several years for all the empty-suits to make up their minds and need it down NOW.

When our words stops meaning anything, the world becomes a much less safe place.

A little late for that now, as Obama was in power when the Crimea was taken.

If a Treaty can't pass by a simple majority in the Senate, then maybe it's not worth it in the first place.