| Users Online Now: 1,453 (Who's On?) | Visitors Today: 414,375 | |
| Pageviews Today: 544,748 | Threads Today: 176 | Posts Today: 2,329 |
| 04:46 AM | ||
| Users Online Now: 1,453 (Who's On?) | Visitors Today: 414,375 | |
| Pageviews Today: 544,748 | Threads Today: 176 | Posts Today: 2,329 |
| 04:46 AM | ||
NATO Article 1, Article 8, Article 11 Violations | |
| nemo_solus
Offer Upgrade  User ID: 78512090  Moldova04/20/2022 07:34 AM  Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| mondali2
User ID: 82879577  Thailand04/20/2022 07:58 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 78274705  Canada04/20/2022 08:06 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | An interesting opinion from Karl this morning over on The Market Ticker: Quoting: nemo_solus [link to market-ticker.org (secure)] Everyone wishes to argue "Article 5" of the NATO treaty, which is the mutual-defense pact. You get attacked and we all get attacked. Quoting: Karl DenningerOk. What does Article I say? The Parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, to settle any international dispute in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations. Quoting: Article IShipping arms into an area where armed conflict is either occurring or threatening to occur, where the destination is NOT a NATO member and thus is NOT subject to NATO's mutual defense obligations is a clear violation of Article I. It is escalatory, it is a threat to use force or enables the actual use of force, and thus is a clear violation of Article I. How about Article 8? Each Party declares that none of the international engagements now in force between it and any other of the Parties or any third State is in conflict with the provisions of this Treaty, and undertakes not to enter into any international engagement in conflict with this Treaty. Quoting: Article 8Providing arms to a belligerent not a member of NATO violates this provision in that it can cause a mutual defense obligation to arise that would otherwise not. Therefore NATO members are obligated to stay out of non-member conflicts except with the unanimous consent of all members. There's more at the article itself... I don't believe this issue with Ukraine is viewed as a Ukraine only problem. Russia has declared that it's motivated to attack Ukraine because it feels threatened by NATO. Therefore NATO obviously views this attack on Ukraine as an attack on NATO. I think NATO has the right to defend itself, however it's trying to avoid direct conflict by using Ukraine as a proxy. Ukraine is not the first country to be used in this way. |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 80893267  United States04/20/2022 08:15 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | An interesting opinion from Karl this morning over on The Market Ticker: Quoting: nemo_solus [link to market-ticker.org (secure)] Everyone wishes to argue "Article 5" of the NATO treaty, which is the mutual-defense pact. You get attacked and we all get attacked. Quoting: Karl DenningerOk. What does Article I say? The Parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, to settle any international dispute in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations. Quoting: Article IShipping arms into an area where armed conflict is either occurring or threatening to occur, where the destination is NOT a NATO member and thus is NOT subject to NATO's mutual defense obligations is a clear violation of Article I. It is escalatory, it is a threat to use force or enables the actual use of force, and thus is a clear violation of Article I. How about Article 8? Each Party declares that none of the international engagements now in force between it and any other of the Parties or any third State is in conflict with the provisions of this Treaty, and undertakes not to enter into any international engagement in conflict with this Treaty. Quoting: Article 8Providing arms to a belligerent not a member of NATO violates this provision in that it can cause a mutual defense obligation to arise that would otherwise not. Therefore NATO members are obligated to stay out of non-member conflicts except with the unanimous consent of all members. There's more at the article itself... I don't believe this issue with Ukraine is viewed as a Ukraine only problem. Russia has declared that it's motivated to attack Ukraine because it feels threatened by NATO. Therefore NATO obviously views this attack on Ukraine as an attack on NATO. I think NATO has the right to defend itself, however it's trying to avoid direct conflict by using Ukraine as a proxy. Ukraine is not the first country to be used in this way. Russia is correct. Who wouldn't feel threatened if someone who's claimed to be your enemy, who also tried to economically destroy your country numerous times in the past, started increasing the number of military installations and military hardware along your border along with numerous highly suspicious "biolabs", while simultaneously enacting a coup in your bordering country in 2014 and installing a puppet regime. If this happened along the US and Mexico border, the US would have responded exactly the same way as Russia responded. |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 82168279 Canada04/20/2022 09:14 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | An interesting opinion from Karl this morning over on The Market Ticker: Quoting: nemo_solus [link to market-ticker.org (secure)] Everyone wishes to argue "Article 5" of the NATO treaty, which is the mutual-defense pact. You get attacked and we all get attacked. Quoting: Karl DenningerOk. What does Article I say? ... Shipping arms into an area where armed conflict is either occurring or threatening to occur, where the destination is NOT a NATO member and thus is NOT subject to NATO's mutual defense obligations is a clear violation of Article I. It is escalatory, it is a threat to use force or enables the actual use of force, and thus is a clear violation of Article I. How about Article 8? ... Providing arms to a belligerent not a member of NATO violates this provision in that it can cause a mutual defense obligation to arise that would otherwise not. Therefore NATO members are obligated to stay out of non-member conflicts except with the unanimous consent of all members. There's more at the article itself... I don't believe this issue with Ukraine is viewed as a Ukraine only problem. Russia has declared that it's motivated to attack Ukraine because it feels threatened by NATO. Therefore NATO obviously views this attack on Ukraine as an attack on NATO. I think NATO has the right to defend itself, however it's trying to avoid direct conflict by using Ukraine as a proxy. Ukraine is not the first country to be used in this way. Russia is correct. Who wouldn't feel threatened if someone who's claimed to be your enemy, who also tried to economically destroy your country numerous times in the past, started increasing the number of military installations and military hardware along your border along with numerous highly suspicious "biolabs", while simultaneously enacting a coup in your bordering country in 2014 and installing a puppet regime. If this happened along the US and Mexico border, the US would have responded exactly the same way as Russia responded.  |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 78571794  Belgium04/20/2022 09:26 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | An interesting opinion from Karl this morning over on The Market Ticker: Quoting: nemo_solus [link to market-ticker.org (secure)] Everyone wishes to argue "Article 5" of the NATO treaty, which is the mutual-defense pact. You get attacked and we all get attacked. Quoting: Karl DenningerOk. What does Article I say? The Parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, to settle any international dispute in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations. Quoting: Article IShipping arms into an area where armed conflict is either occurring or threatening to occur, where the destination is NOT a NATO member and thus is NOT subject to NATO's mutual defense obligations is a clear violation of Article I. It is escalatory, it is a threat to use force or enables the actual use of force, and thus is a clear violation of Article I. How about Article 8? Each Party declares that none of the international engagements now in force between it and any other of the Parties or any third State is in conflict with the provisions of this Treaty, and undertakes not to enter into any international engagement in conflict with this Treaty. Quoting: Article 8Providing arms to a belligerent not a member of NATO violates this provision in that it can cause a mutual defense obligation to arise that would otherwise not. Therefore NATO members are obligated to stay out of non-member conflicts except with the unanimous consent of all members. There's more at the article itself...  |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 80688083 United States04/20/2022 10:36 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| 4thhorseman
User ID: 77575566 United States04/20/2022 10:43 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | SICSEMPERTYRANIS Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum Vi veri universum vivus vici "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact". Arthur Conan Doyle "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth". Arthur Conan Doyle MOLON LABE [link to www.usavsus.info] |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 4812794 United States04/20/2022 10:50 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 82923970  Hong Kong04/20/2022 10:55 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| Contra spem spero
User ID: 82933070 United States04/20/2022 11:05 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | An interesting opinion from Karl this morning over on The Market Ticker: Quoting: nemo_solus [link to market-ticker.org (secure)] Everyone wishes to argue "Article 5" of the NATO treaty, which is the mutual-defense pact. You get attacked and we all get attacked. Quoting: Karl DenningerOk. What does Article I say? The Parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, to settle any international dispute in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations. Quoting: Article IShipping arms into an area where armed conflict is either occurring or threatening to occur, where the destination is NOT a NATO member and thus is NOT subject to NATO's mutual defense obligations is a clear violation of Article I. It is escalatory, it is a threat to use force or enables the actual use of force, and thus is a clear violation of Article I. How about Article 8? Each Party declares that none of the international engagements now in force between it and any other of the Parties or any third State is in conflict with the provisions of this Treaty, and undertakes not to enter into any international engagement in conflict with this Treaty. Quoting: Article 8Providing arms to a belligerent not a member of NATO violates this provision in that it can cause a mutual defense obligation to arise that would otherwise not. Therefore NATO members are obligated to stay out of non-member conflicts except with the unanimous consent of all members. There's more at the article itself... Fu.k Russia, USA is part of Budapest Memorandum. [link to en.m.wikipedia.org (secure)] Contra spem spero |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 82690982 United States04/20/2022 11:07 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| Texas Patriot User ID: 76023531 United States04/20/2022 11:08 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | An interesting opinion from Karl this morning over on The Market Ticker: Quoting: nemo_solus [link to market-ticker.org (secure)] Everyone wishes to argue "Article 5" of the NATO treaty, which is the mutual-defense pact. You get attacked and we all get attacked. Quoting: Karl DenningerOk. What does Article I say? The Parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, to settle any international dispute in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations. Quoting: Article IShipping arms into an area where armed conflict is either occurring or threatening to occur, where the destination is NOT a NATO member and thus is NOT subject to NATO's mutual defense obligations is a clear violation of Article I. It is escalatory, it is a threat to use force or enables the actual use of force, and thus is a clear violation of Article I. How about Article 8? Each Party declares that none of the international engagements now in force between it and any other of the Parties or any third State is in conflict with the provisions of this Treaty, and undertakes not to enter into any international engagement in conflict with this Treaty. Quoting: Article 8Providing arms to a belligerent not a member of NATO violates this provision in that it can cause a mutual defense obligation to arise that would otherwise not. Therefore NATO members are obligated to stay out of non-member conflicts except with the unanimous consent of all members. There's more at the article itself... I don't believe this issue with Ukraine is viewed as a Ukraine only problem. Russia has declared that it's motivated to attack Ukraine because it feels threatened by NATO. Therefore NATO obviously views this attack on Ukraine as an attack on NATO. I think NATO has the right to defend itself, however it's trying to avoid direct conflict by using Ukraine as a proxy. Ukraine is not the first country to be used in this way. It is more about President Putin exposing the Criminally Insane NWO using Ukraine as a money laundering bioweapon's lab Country! |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 80882448 United States04/20/2022 11:14 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 82369453 Hong Kong04/20/2022 11:17 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 79921326 04/20/2022 11:25 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| New Atlantis
User ID: 70809335 United States04/20/2022 11:35 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | An interesting opinion from Karl this morning over on The Market Ticker: Quoting: nemo_solus [link to market-ticker.org (secure)] Everyone wishes to argue "Article 5" of the NATO treaty, which is the mutual-defense pact. You get attacked and we all get attacked. Quoting: Karl DenningerOk. What does Article I say? ... Shipping arms into an area where armed conflict is either occurring or threatening to occur, where the destination is NOT a NATO member and thus is NOT subject to NATO's mutual defense obligations is a clear violation of Article I. It is escalatory, it is a threat to use force or enables the actual use of force, and thus is a clear violation of Article I. How about Article 8? ... Providing arms to a belligerent not a member of NATO violates this provision in that it can cause a mutual defense obligation to arise that would otherwise not. Therefore NATO members are obligated to stay out of non-member conflicts except with the unanimous consent of all members. There's more at the article itself... I don't believe this issue with Ukraine is viewed as a Ukraine only problem. Russia has declared that it's motivated to attack Ukraine because it feels threatened by NATO. Therefore NATO obviously views this attack on Ukraine as an attack on NATO. I think NATO has the right to defend itself, however it's trying to avoid direct conflict by using Ukraine as a proxy. Ukraine is not the first country to be used in this way. Russia is correct. Who wouldn't feel threatened if someone who's claimed to be your enemy, who also tried to economically destroy your country numerous times in the past, started increasing the number of military installations and military hardware along your border along with numerous highly suspicious "biolabs", while simultaneously enacting a coup in your bordering country in 2014 and installing a puppet regime. If this happened along the US and Mexico border, the US would have responded exactly the same way as Russia responded.  "What you think, you become." - Buddha |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 82929242  Australia04/20/2022 11:38 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| Mi So Horn Knee User ID: 79388948  Mexico04/20/2022 11:40 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 78811687  Italy04/20/2022 11:48 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| mlabors
User ID: 82879273 United States04/21/2022 12:42 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | An interesting opinion from Karl this morning over on The Market Ticker: Quoting: nemo_solus [link to market-ticker.org (secure)] Everyone wishes to argue "Article 5" of the NATO treaty, which is the mutual-defense pact. You get attacked and we all get attacked. Quoting: Karl DenningerOk. What does Article I say? The Parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, to settle any international dispute in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations. Quoting: Article IShipping arms into an area where armed conflict is either occurring or threatening to occur, where the destination is NOT a NATO member and thus is NOT subject to NATO's mutual defense obligations is a clear violation of Article I. It is escalatory, it is a threat to use force or enables the actual use of force, and thus is a clear violation of Article I. How about Article 8? Each Party declares that none of the international engagements now in force between it and any other of the Parties or any third State is in conflict with the provisions of this Treaty, and undertakes not to enter into any international engagement in conflict with this Treaty. Quoting: Article 8Providing arms to a belligerent not a member of NATO violates this provision in that it can cause a mutual defense obligation to arise that would otherwise not. Therefore NATO members are obligated to stay out of non-member conflicts except with the unanimous consent of all members. There's more at the article itself... Fu.k Russia, USA is part of Budapest Memorandum. [link to en.m.wikipedia.org (secure)] nothing here says we cannot resupply the Ukraine. |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 82934345 04/21/2022 01:00 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| PEEBALLS
User ID: 79959811 United States04/21/2022 01:00 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 70776282  New Zealand04/21/2022 01:21 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Bidean is clearly in violation of this NATO charter. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 82923970 He is also in violation of US law, as Congress has not declared war NZ and Ozzie have objected to the agreement of China providing security to the Solomon Islands. New Zealand and Australia have made it clear they don't want China in our backyard. But.. but.. both countries condemn Russia for the SAME reason!! Russia feel unsafe with NATO in their backyard. It is laughable how the western leaders think...They got this megomania egos that they think they own the world. |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 80384947 United States04/21/2022 03:19 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | An interesting opinion from Karl this morning over on The Market Ticker: Quoting: nemo_solus [link to market-ticker.org (secure)] Everyone wishes to argue "Article 5" of the NATO treaty, which is the mutual-defense pact. You get attacked and we all get attacked. Quoting: Karl DenningerOk. What does Article I say? ... Shipping arms into an area where armed conflict is either occurring or threatening to occur, where the destination is NOT a NATO member and thus is NOT subject to NATO's mutual defense obligations is a clear violation of Article I. It is escalatory, it is a threat to use force or enables the actual use of force, and thus is a clear violation of Article I. How about Article 8? ... Providing arms to a belligerent not a member of NATO violates this provision in that it can cause a mutual defense obligation to arise that would otherwise not. Therefore NATO members are obligated to stay out of non-member conflicts except with the unanimous consent of all members. There's more at the article itself... I don't believe this issue with Ukraine is viewed as a Ukraine only problem. Russia has declared that it's motivated to attack Ukraine because it feels threatened by NATO. Therefore NATO obviously views this attack on Ukraine as an attack on NATO. I think NATO has the right to defend itself, however it's trying to avoid direct conflict by using Ukraine as a proxy. Ukraine is not the first country to be used in this way. Russia is correct. Who wouldn't feel threatened if someone who's claimed to be your enemy, who also tried to economically destroy your country numerous times in the past, started increasing the number of military installations and military hardware along your border along with numerous highly suspicious "biolabs", while simultaneously enacting a coup in your bordering country in 2014 and installing a puppet regime. If this happened along the US and Mexico border, the US would have responded exactly the same way as Russia responded. You are right except the last part. US always fist carpet bombs a country no matter how many civilians die, they don't give a shit about that. And then when 95 % of all resistance is gone, the US military heroes go in to "win" the war. |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 82779683 United States04/21/2022 04:02 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 43938106 United States04/21/2022 04:06 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | An interesting opinion from Karl this morning over on The Market Ticker: Quoting: nemo_solus [link to market-ticker.org (secure)] Everyone wishes to argue "Article 5" of the NATO treaty, which is the mutual-defense pact. You get attacked and we all get attacked. Quoting: Karl DenningerOk. What does Article I say? The Parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, to settle any international dispute in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations. Quoting: Article IShipping arms into an area where armed conflict is either occurring or threatening to occur, where the destination is NOT a NATO member and thus is NOT subject to NATO's mutual defense obligations is a clear violation of Article I. It is escalatory, it is a threat to use force or enables the actual use of force, and thus is a clear violation of Article I. How about Article 8? Each Party declares that none of the international engagements now in force between it and any other of the Parties or any third State is in conflict with the provisions of this Treaty, and undertakes not to enter into any international engagement in conflict with this Treaty. Quoting: Article 8Providing arms to a belligerent not a member of NATO violates this provision in that it can cause a mutual defense obligation to arise that would otherwise not. Therefore NATO members are obligated to stay out of non-member conflicts except with the unanimous consent of all members. There's more at the article itself... I don't believe this issue with Ukraine is viewed as a Ukraine only problem. Russia has declared that it's motivated to attack Ukraine because it feels threatened by NATO. Therefore NATO obviously views this attack on Ukraine as an attack on NATO. I think NATO has the right to defend itself, however it's trying to avoid direct conflict by using Ukraine as a proxy. Ukraine is not the first country to be used in this way. NATO still violated A1 and, hence A8 by telling Zelensky to publicly refuse to concede to Russia's demand that Ukraine commit to never join NATO. Pure, intentional escalation. |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 1733795 United States04/21/2022 04:15 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Its all bs. Putin didn't need to attack Ukraine. He wants that land attached to Crimea. period. The world has shrank so much 100 miles doesn't matter in the scheme of things. I feel this is some kind of bait and switch. They want us focused on this. While they fuck us over some where else. The people are the ones that always pay. I feel for the Russian and the Ukrainian people. They are the ones being murdered. Was there ever a war that was good? I doubt it. God bless. Love each other while you can. We are not promised tomorrow. Make the most of the present. |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 82843833 United States04/21/2022 04:25 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | An interesting opinion from Karl this morning over on The Market Ticker: Quoting: nemo_solus [link to market-ticker.org (secure)] Everyone wishes to argue "Article 5" of the NATO treaty, which is the mutual-defense pact. You get attacked and we all get attacked. Quoting: Karl DenningerOk. What does Article I say? The Parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, to settle any international dispute in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations. Quoting: Article IShipping arms into an area where armed conflict is either occurring or threatening to occur, where the destination is NOT a NATO member and thus is NOT subject to NATO's mutual defense obligations is a clear violation of Article I. It is escalatory, it is a threat to use force or enables the actual use of force, and thus is a clear violation of Article I. How about Article 8? Each Party declares that none of the international engagements now in force between it and any other of the Parties or any third State is in conflict with the provisions of this Treaty, and undertakes not to enter into any international engagement in conflict with this Treaty. Quoting: Article 8Providing arms to a belligerent not a member of NATO violates this provision in that it can cause a mutual defense obligation to arise that would otherwise not. Therefore NATO members are obligated to stay out of non-member conflicts except with the unanimous consent of all members. There's more at the article itself... The mental gymnastics here is hilarious.  |
| thinking...
User ID: 78212432 United States04/21/2022 05:07 AM  Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | An interesting opinion from Karl this morning over on The Market Ticker: Quoting: nemo_solus [link to market-ticker.org (secure)] Everyone wishes to argue "Article 5" of the NATO treaty, which is the mutual-defense pact. You get attacked and we all get attacked. Quoting: Karl DenningerOk. What does Article I say? The Parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, to settle any international dispute in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations. Quoting: Article IShipping arms into an area where armed conflict is either occurring or threatening to occur, where the destination is NOT a NATO member and thus is NOT subject to NATO's mutual defense obligations is a clear violation of Article I. It is escalatory, it is a threat to use force or enables the actual use of force, and thus is a clear violation of Article I. How about Article 8? Each Party declares that none of the international engagements now in force between it and any other of the Parties or any third State is in conflict with the provisions of this Treaty, and undertakes not to enter into any international engagement in conflict with this Treaty. Quoting: Article 8Providing arms to a belligerent not a member of NATO violates this provision in that it can cause a mutual defense obligation to arise that would otherwise not. Therefore NATO members are obligated to stay out of non-member conflicts except with the unanimous consent of all members. There's more at the article itself... I don't believe this issue with Ukraine is viewed as a Ukraine only problem. Russia has declared that it's motivated to attack Ukraine because it feels threatened by NATO. Therefore NATO obviously views this attack on Ukraine as an attack on NATO. I think NATO has the right to defend itself, however it's trying to avoid direct conflict by using Ukraine as a proxy. Ukraine is not the first country to be used in this way. No. Russia is not engaged in any war with a NATO member nation, period. NATO does not have any "right" to "use Ukraine as a proxy", though that's what it's doing. In his poem Human Pride, Marx admits that his aim is not to improve the world, reform or revolutionize it, but simply to ruin it and enjoy it being ruined: With disdain I will throw my gauntlet full in the face of the world, And see the collapse of this pygmy giant whose fall will not stifle my ardor. Then will I wander godlike and victorious through the ruins of the world And, giving my words an active force, I will feel equal to the Creator. “Looking for consciousness in the brain is like looking in the radio for the announcer.” – Nasseim Haramein, Director of Research for the Resonance Project |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 71909182  United Kingdom04/21/2022 05:18 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
