Sounds like Obama gave Putin..

The US is full of native Poles and Europeans, not native Iraqis and Afganis.

If Europe is going to get invaded by Russia, they US populace will recognize the need to defend it you fucking dumbass
Click to expand...

Yes. Because there are hundred of thousands if not millions of immigrants and 1st generation Polish americans with strong ties to the old country.

Or maybe not. You're reaching harder and farther than Jane Fonda in the 80's in this thread.
 
The US is full of native Poles and Europeans, not native Iraqis and Afganis.

If Europe is going to get invaded by Russia, they US populace will recognize the need to defend it you fucking dumbass
Click to expand...

Yes. Because there are hundred of thousands if not millions of immigrants and 1st generation Polish americans with strong ties to the old country.

Or maybe not. You're reaching harder and farther than Jane Fonda in the 80's in this thread.
Click to expand...

I didn't mean 'native', I meant ethnic.

My BAD BRAH
 
Threads like this with limp wrist liberals pulling out contracts to argue how tuff we are is why I moved the fuck away from the NW.

Putins going to slowly absorb those fucking countries with the same ethic goonsquads and SF he's using in Ukraine now. No invasion, just strong handed "democracy" and us western fags ($75k) are going to keep moving the goalposts because deep down we know we don't want to fight that big fat drunk russian bear.
 
Threads like this with limp wrist liberals pulling out contracts to argue how tuff we are is why I moved the fuck away from the NW.
Click to expand...

NATO isn't a liberal versus a conservative issue you dumb fucking faggot. Good thing your dumb ass moved away from the region
 
Threads like this with limp wrist liberals pulling out contracts to argue how tuff we are is why I moved the fuck away from the NW.
Click to expand...

NATO isn't a liberal versus a conservative issue you dumb fucking faggot. Good thing your dumb ass moved away from the region
Click to expand...

1) The US Constitution trumps all treaties
2) The law of self-preservation overrules the law of obligation to others
3) Congress can choice to nullify the treaty by statute

 
Threads like this with limp wrist liberals pulling out contracts to argue how tuff we are is why I moved the fuck away from the NW.
Click to expand...

NATO isn't a liberal versus a conservative issue you dumb fucking faggot. Good thing your dumb ass moved away from the region
Click to expand...

Only naive idealists think NATO is anything without the US backing it CONTRACT or not. And right now it seems like we don't want to do more than say we're disappointed and talk about sanctions.

What damone said, self-preservation trumps obligation to others, i thought that was a widely understood especially by limp wristed liberals.
 
Threads like this with limp wrist liberals pulling out contracts to argue how tuff we are is why I moved the fuck away from the NW.
Click to expand...

NATO isn't a liberal versus a conservative issue you dumb fucking faggot. Good thing your dumb ass moved away from the region
Click to expand...

Only naive idealists think NATO is anything without the US backing it CONTRACT or not. And right now it seems like we don't want to do more than say we're disappointed and talk about sanctions.

What damone said, self-preservation trumps obligation to others, i thought that was a widely understood especially by limp wristed liberals.
Click to expand...

Some poonts:

1) I'm no where close to liberal

2) Obviously NATO is nothing without the US. The US is the world policeman; Europe mostly freerides on US provided security.

3) We are only saying we are disappointed and threatening sanctions because Ukraine is not in an alliance with us. They had a chance back in 2003-04 to join EU/NATO and fucked it up. We don't owe them any protection. Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, etc. have all joined EU/NATO and are doing infinitely better than Ukraine, which has been a clusterfuck for 30 years.

4) Self-preservation definitely trumps obligation to others, and the US doesn't do anything it won't benefit from. However, it is in US interests to defend its allies. NATO countries are essentially US military territories -- the US can station bases/troops in any of them. I don't think the US spent so much energy attempting to dissolve Soviet influence just to watch Russia grab in back with some tanks.

5) If we turn our back on our NATO allies, we are essentially saying we are no longer the alpha male country. Europe will hate us, and if Putin were allowed to take the Baltics ala Hitler taking territory in WW2....we'll we all know how that played out. Poland, Germany, Austria, Hungary, Czech Repub, Slovakia, Kosovo, Greece, Italy, France etc. would be sweating bullets and would fucking hate us forever if we handed them over to the Russians.

NATO isn't a contract. It's a military alliance to prevent something like the USSR from rising to power and threatening Europe again.
 
Per the Constitution, ratified treaties are the law of the land.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Click to expand...

 
Last edited:
I believe this to be about 94.5% accurate according to my own estimations. Russia will not even think about invading Poland. If it does, both Europe and the US will declare war. If they invade Moldova, Tajikstan, Azerbaijan or Osamajistan, no one will do shit other than talk more about sanctions.
 
Per the Constitution, ratified treaties are the law of the land.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

What's your point?
 
Last edited:
You said that the Constitution trumps treaties, when the Constitution itself says different... that's my point
 
You said that the Constitution trumps treaties, when the Constitution itself says different... that's my point
Click to expand...

Um...no, it doesn't. That passage simply says if congress ratifies a treaty, (or passes any law) all a states have to follow it. States can't opt out. Congress can at anytime decide to end a treaty and a treaty cannot supersede any rights granted by the constitution.

HTH.
 
In the United States, a different principle is established. Our constitution declares a treaty to be the law of the land. It is, consequently, to be regarded in courts of justice as equivalent to an act of the legislature, whenever it operates of itself, without the aid of any legislative provision. But when the terms of the stipulation import a contract—when either of the parties engages to perform a particular act, the treaty addresses itself to the political, not the judicial department; and the legislature must execute the contract, before it can become a rule for the Court.
Click to expand...

Foster v. Neilson, 27 U.S. (2 Pet.) 253, 314 (1829). See THE FEDERALIST No. 75 (J. Cooke ed. 1961), 504-505.

But more on point, do you think that Congress would repudiate the NATO treaty if Putin invaded Poland?

That's fucking nuts.

 
Last edited:
In the United States, a different principle is established. Our constitution declares a treaty to be the law of the land. It is, consequently, to be regarded in courts of justice as equivalent to an act of the legislature, whenever it operates of itself, without the aid of any legislative provision. But when the terms of the stipulation import a contract—when either of the parties engages to perform a particular act, the treaty addresses itself to the political, not the judicial department; and the legislature must execute the contract, before it can become a rule for the Court.
Click to expand...

Foster v. Neilson, 27 U.S. (2 Pet.) 253, 314 (1829). See THE FEDERALIST No. 75 (J. Cooke ed. 1961), 504-505.
Click to expand...

Yeah? I'm not sure what you're trying to say, but laws and treaties don't supercede the constitution. If a treaty was ratified that required every citizen to give up their guns, the Supreme Court would strike it down. The same process applies to treaties as laws. If next week congress decided they didn't want to be in NATO any longer, they could do that.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reid_v._Covert
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top