It’s Official: US Abandoning Ukraine | Scheerpost

[robosmith]

3 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Yet another Libbie pressing the panic button.

Fact is, Tweenkie-Poo, millions upon millions already know the complete story and want this tragedy ended.

You will NEVER get the "complete story" from your right wing propaganda sites.

[Nationalist]

3 minutes ago, robosmith said:

You will NEVER get the "complete story" from your right wing propaganda sites.

LOL...and you're doing sooo well with your MSM.

53% approval for Trump now. Choke on it.

[robosmith]

1 minute ago, Nationalist said:

LOL...and you're doing sooo well with your MSM.

YOUR IGNORANCE is palpable.

1 minute ago, Nationalist said:

53% approval for Trump now. Choke on it.

LMAO

[User]

13 minutes ago, Scott75 said:

I can see how those supporting the western mainstream narrative would be quite pleased with that quote from Gorbachev, but it doesn't change the fact that Gorbachev -was- assured that NATO wouldn't expand "one inch eastward" of Germany. By the time of Gorbachev's interview, he was quite old. Surely you've considered the fact that he simply forgot? I've pointed to my post #237 multiple times, but I suspect that you'll never click on the link, so here is what I quoted back then once more:

LOL, so... screw the guy there, your argument is to ignore him and keep making the same assertion I have already picked apart. 

How was he assured? 

Yet again, there was no such formal agreement made. You should already know by now, I do not read your attempts to obfuscate with spam. 

[WestCanMan]

3 hours ago, Scott75 said:

True. However, robosmith wasn't talking about NATO expansion in the post you're responding to, but the Budapest Memorandum. From what I've read, the U.S. broke the Budapest agreement back in 2014. An introduction to the Budapest Memorandum, from Wikipedia's page on the subject:

I didn't realize that it was the US that broke that one first. I just knew that they went back on their word about NATO expansion over and over again for decades before Russia invaded Ukraine. 

[WestCanMan]

2 hours ago, robosmith said:

You will NEVER get the "complete story" from your right wing propaganda sites.

Says the guy who's wrong about everything, and who even posts links to sites that debunk his own lies. 

[WestCanMan]

8 hours ago, Scott75 said:

In other words, you're saying that...

Do you get the feeling that you have to explain the same things over and over to these guys? 

Truth is, inconvenient facts just don't sink in. That's why we call them cultists. 

[impartialobserver]

I do feel bad for the average Ukrainian who is simply trying to live and get by. Nothing that they can do to stop this war. My guess is if they try to leave, they face serious challenges especially if they travel east or south. Second, war tends to deplete your resources so probably can't afford much and it takes money to travel. 

[User]

42 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Do you get the feeling that you have to explain the same things over and over to these guys? 

Truth is, inconvenient facts just don't sink in. That's why we call them cultists. 

You don't explain anything. You lie, we call you out for your lies, then you just lie again. 

 

[WestCanMan]

8 hours ago, Scott75 said:

In an effort to revive said productive discussion, I definitely think that a lot of people do realize that the western mainstream media narrative on the Ukraine war is false.

Normally I'd call that fake news, but when it comes to war I expect them to lie. 

Not that lying is always the right thing to do, as we saw in the second Iraq war, but it's just normal. 

That being said, the propaganda should at least make sense, which it never did. At the beginning they were saying something like "15,000 dead Russian soldiers, less than 1,000 dead Ukrainian soldiers, less than 1,000 dead civilians... IT'S A GENOCIDE!" 

🤔

All the usual suspects repeated it, as if they were somehow making a really poignant statement of fact, but imo that's some kind of weird reverse-genocide if it was true.

[WestCanMan]

4 hours ago, User said:

You don't explain anything. You lie, we call you out for your lies, then you just lie again. 

 

STFU, dolt. 

If you think I lied somewhere, I'd love to see you point it out. 

I always told you cultist stooges that Russia was given assurances by NATO, the US, etc that they wouldn't move 1" east past Germany and here we are, finally all agreeing on that. 

So wht's your problem now, stupid?

1. Do you still think the Azovs aren't Nazis?
2. Do you still think they didn't commit war crimes?
3. Do you deny that the Penatagon gave an Azov Nazi an award?
4. Or that Jon Stewart pinned it on him?
5. Do you think that the US and Ukraine weren't jointly working on cures, treatments, etc for known bio/chemical warfare agents in Ukrainian BSL4 labs?
6. Do you think the US wasn't involved in orchestrating the Euromaidan protests?
7. That they weren't picking and choosing who could and couldn't run for president?
8. Do you think that Zelenski didn't kick opposition members out of gov't? 
9. Do you think that Zelenski didn't seize total control of all the media outlets in Ukraine?
10. Do you think that Russia wasn't having peace talks at the beginning of the war?
11. Do you think that Russia and Ukraine didn't have a peace agreement worked out that NATO members kiboshed?
12. Do you think that Russia didn't basically start amassing troops on Ukraine's border right after Biden's inauguration?
13. Do you think that Biden wasn't working from the WH to get NATO into Ukraine since 2009, when he was VP?
14. Do you think that Biden's reason for spending so much time in Ukraine as VP wasn't supposedly to "get rid of corruption in Ukraine so that they could join NATO"?

Where are these battle lines, dummy? Seems like they're well into southeastern Ukraine, right, dummy?

What do you think I lied about, you cultist f'ing stooge?

You have been regurgitating worthless, insipid US propaganda ever since the war started. it's like you're a 12-yr-old. 

Edited February 11 by WestCanMan

[User]

1 hour ago, WestCanMan said:

STFU, dolt. 

If you think I lied somewhere, I'd love to see you point it out. 

Last time I did that you ran away and hid. 

This topic is as good of any place to start, as you continue to push the lie that the West/Nato/US engaged in any kind of actual deal that NATO would never expand East. 

 

[WestCanMan]

1 hour ago, User said:

Last time I did that you ran away and hid. 

This topic is as good of any place to start, as you continue to push the lie that the West/Nato/US engaged in any kind of actual deal that NATO would never expand East. 

 

I put you on ignore because you refuse to acknowledge the truth and you're a mouthy id10t, not because I was "running from you".

Just look at your current post, dummy. You neglected to even say 1 word about a litany of claims I made that all drew snotty insults from you and the leftard horde here, and you've made this one statement into your hill to die on:

• "Just because the US Sec of State said that NATO wouldn't expand past Germany, and the Russians had similar discussions with other NATO countries, doesn't mean shit, because they never signed anything. We just lied to them, and they were stupid enough to take us at our word."

FYI we're not disagreeing on whether or not Russia signed blood oaths with everyone, we are in agreement: I have never said that the United states signed a formal declaration. Nor Germany. Nor France. Nor Britain. I just said that the US gave their word, and Helmut Kohl and other NATO representatives did the same thing.

Where we differ is that I think that we should honour the words that came out of our mouths, and you think that only signed agreements need to be adhered to. We just have wildly different standards of integrity, and that's why we don't see eye to eye. 

 

The bottom line remains: we lied, and Russia is at war. It's as f'ing simple as that, dummy.

And FYI, Russia is allowed to go to war. They literally had every right to go to war against Ukraine, and plenty of good reasons. This is a totally legitimate war, and Ukraine can go f'ck themselves. I wouldn't give them the steam off my sh1t.

Edited February 11 by WestCanMan

[Scott75]

15 hours ago, User said:

15 hours ago, Scott75 said:

15 hours ago, User said:

15 hours ago, Scott75 said:

I've seen no one in this forum ever say that a formal agreement was made with the Soviet Union that NATO would not expand east of Germany. What I -have- been saying for some time now is that Gorbachev was assured that NATO wouldn't go "one inch eastward" of Germany. As I've mentioned to you in the past, I posted strong evidence of this back in post #237. Let me know if you ever read beyond the first paragraph of said post. 

That is a meaningless assurance then.

Sadly, I agree with you. U.S. officials' statements are generally worthless.

That was not my statement.

Ofcourse not, it was mine. I'm pretty sure what you're -trying- to say is that my response to your statement suggests I misinterpreted yours. So, by all means, tell me how Mr. Baker's statements on NATO expansion during his February 9, 1990 meeting with Gorbachev were anything other than worthless. I'll quote from an article from the National Security Archive on exactly what Mr. Baker said to Gorbachev so you can appreciate the context:

**

Not once, but three times, Baker tried out the “not one inch eastward” formula with Gorbachev in the February 9, 1990, meeting. He agreed with Gorbachev’s statement in response to the assurances that “NATO expansion is unacceptable.” Baker assured Gorbachev that “neither the President nor I intend to extract any unilateral advantages from the processes that are taking place,” and that the Americans understood that “not only for the Soviet Union but for other European countries as well it is important to have guarantees that if the United States keeps its presence in Germany within the framework of NATO, not an inch of NATO’s present military jurisdiction will spread in an eastern direction.” (See Document 6) 

**

Full article:

https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early

[Scott75]

15 hours ago, User said:

15 hours ago, Scott75 said:

I think it's understandable that Gorbachev doesn't want to admit that he was naive when it came to the West's assurances that NATO wouldn't expand eastward. Yeltsin, who was not yet President when Gorbachev was getting his assurances, was much more forthright on the matter, Putin even more so. An article from Der Spiegel gets into it:

**

In September 1993, Russian President Boris Yeltsin wrote a long letter to U.S. President Bill Clinton. The letter, addressed to "Dear Bill," began with a mention of the two leaders’ "candid exchange of opinions." And then Yeltsin let loose.

Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic were interested in joining the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which was a source of concern to the Russian president. Of course, Yeltsin noted, every country can decide for itself what alliance it would like to be a part of. But the Russian public, he continued, saw the eastern expansion of NATO as "as a sort of neo-isolation" of Russia, a factor, he insisted, that must be taken into account. Yeltsin also made a reference to the Two Plus Four Treaty pertaining to Germany’s reunification in 1990. "The spirit of the treaty," he wrote, "precludes the option of expanding the NATO zone into the East."

That letter marked the first time that Russia had accused the West of having broken its word. And despite the fact that the Americans rejected the accusation, a resolution to the conflict has never been found – a situation which has had far-reaching consequences stretching to the present-day. There is essentially no other historical issue that has poisoned relations between Moscow and the West as much in the last three decades as the disagreement over what, precisely, was agreed to in 1990.

"You Cheated Us Shamelessly"

In the years since Yeltsin sent his letter, NATO has accepted 14 countries in Eastern and Southeastern Europe into the alliance. And the Kremlin has complained of having been duped every step of the way. Just recently, current Russian President Vladimir Putin complained: "You cheated us shamelessly."

The focus of the Kremlin’s ire is no longer exclusively on the Two Plus Four deal, but essentially on all accords negotiated since the fall of the Berlin Wall. "You promised us in the 1990s that (NATO) would not move an inch to the East," Putin said in late January. And he is using that history to justify his current demands for written guarantees that Ukraine will never be accepted into the Western alliance.

**

Full article:

https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/nato-s-eastward-expansion-is-vladimir-putin-right-a-bf318d2c-7aeb-4b59-8d5f-1d8c94e1964d

LOL, the "spirit of the treaty"

I find it rather ironic that on the one hand, you laugh at the notion of "the spirit of the treaty" and yet on the other, you disagree with my statement that U.S. official statements are generally worthless. I think anyone with a reasonable sense of logic would understand that Gorbachev was led to believe that the treaty would include no expansion east of Germany. I found a document at the National Security archive that really hammers home that this was Gorbachev's understanding at the time. Quoting from it:

**

Turning to German unification, Baker assures Gorbachev that “neither the president nor I intend to extract any unilateral advantages from the processes that are taking place,” and that the Americans understand the importance for the USSR and Europe of guarantees that “not an inch of NATO’s present military jurisdiction will spread in an eastern direction.” Baker argues in favor of the Two-Plus-Four talks using the same assurance: “We believe that consultations and discussions within the framework of the ‘two+four’ mechanism should guarantee that Germany’s unification will not lead to NATO’s military organization spreading to the east.” Gorbachev responds by quoting Polish President Wojciech Jaruzelski: “that the presence of American and Soviet troops in Europe is an element of stability.” 

The key exchange takes place when Baker asks whether Gorbachev would prefer “a united Germany outside of NATO, absolutely independent and without American troops; or a united Germany keeping its connections with NATO, but with the guarantee that NATO’s jurisdiction or troops will not spread east of the present boundary.” Thus, in this conversation, the U.S. secretary of state three times offers assurances that if Germany were allowed to unify in NATO, preserving the U.S. presence in Europe, then NATO would not expand to the east. Interestingly, not once does he use the term GDR or East Germany or even mention the Soviet troops in East Germany. For a skilled negotiator and careful lawyer, it seems very unlikely Baker would not use specific terminology if in fact he was referring only to East Germany.

The Soviet leader responds that “[w]e will think everything over. We intend to discuss all these questions in depth at the leadership level. It goes without saying that a broadening of the NATO zone is not acceptable.” Baker affirms: “We agree with that.”

**

Full article:

https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/document/16117-document-06-record-conversation-between

[Scott75]

14 hours ago, robosmith said:

20 hours ago, Scott75 said:

Off Guardian is a British Publication, not Estonian. I suspect you're thinking of a different passage from Kit Knightly's article that I've quoted previously. It mentions nothing of the Estonian press, but -does- mention the Estonian government. Quoting:

**

MARCH [2014]
Evidence emerges that the snipers shooting at the crowds were not employed by the Ukrainian government, but were shooting at both sides in an effort to stoke chaos.

This evidence is presented to the EU’s Foreign Policy Chief Catherine Ashton by Estonia Foreign Minister Urmas Paet in a phone call that is later leaked to the press, and confirmed to be genuine by the Estonian government.

Neither the EU, nor the new government of Ukraine, makes any effort to investigate this evidence or bring the killers to justice.

**

Source:

https://off-guardian.org/2022/02/24/timeline-euromaidan-the-original-ukraine-crisis/

 

If you click on the 2 embedded links, you'll see that the first one is now dead, but the second one actually leads to an article from a mainstream British publication. Quoting:

**

Estonian Foreign Ministry confirms authenticity of leaked phone call discussing how Kiev snipers who shot protesters were possibly hired by Ukraine's new leaders

• Leaked phone call suggests anti-government protesters hired the snipers
• Call between EU's foreign affairs chief Catherine Ashton and Estonia's foreign affairs minister Urmas Paet
• Paet appears to claim opposition leaders hired the snipers that killed 94

By JOHN HALL

Published: 13:14 EST, 5 March 2014 | Updated: 04:28 EST, 6 March 2014

Estonia has confirmed the authenticity of a leaked telephone call between its foreign minister and an EU chief which suggested the sniper killings in Ukraine last month were ordered by the new coalition.

The 11-minute call between the EU's foreign affairs chief Catherine Ashton and her Estonian counterpart Urmas Paet was made on February 25 in the aftermath of the massacre.

During the call, Paet claims a doctor told him both protesters and police were shot by snipers during clashes in Kiev allegedly on the orders of the opposition.

**

I think it's worth pointing out that the Estonian government, while confirming that the leaked call was genuine, tried to say that what was said wasn't actually said. Continuing from John Hall's Daily Mail article:

**

But while the Baltic state acknowledged the audio was genuine, it denied that it had blamed opponents of Ukraine's deposed president for sniper killings during last month's unrest.

**

So, as I asked you before, why do think the EU and the Ukrainian government were so disintereted in investigating this evidence?

As I also wrote in the past, this UK Daily Mail article wasn't the only article that strongly suggested that Yanukovych's government wasn't behind the killings. An article from Global Research also did that, citing an Italian documentary that interviewed 3 snipers of Georgian nationality who claimed to have participated in the massacre. That article can be seen here:

https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-hidden-truth-about-ukraine-italian-documentary-bombshell-evidence-kiev-euromaidan-snipers-kill-demonstrators/5619684

"Possibly" is the best you got.

For any audience members that may not be sure as to what robosmith is referring to, I imagine it's a word in the title of an article from the mainstream media publication The Daily Mail that I quoted. The full title is "Estonian Foreign Ministry confirms authenticity of leaked phone call discussing how Kiev snipers who shot protesters were possibly hired by Ukraine's new leaders".

My response is that that title is just the tip of the iceberg. Even the Daily Mail article itself suggests that far from just a possibility, it is in fact probably the truth. Once again quoting from said article:

**

• Leaked phone call suggests anti-government protesters hired the snipers
• Call between EU's foreign affairs chief Catherine Ashton and Estonia's foreign affairs minister Urmas Paet
• Paet appears to claim opposition leaders hired the snipers that killed 94

By JOHN HALL

Published: 13:14 EST, 5 March 2014 | Updated: 04:28 EST, 6 March 2014

Estonia has confirmed the authenticity of a leaked telephone call between its foreign minister and an EU chief which suggested the sniper killings in Ukraine last month were ordered by the new coalition.

The 11-minute call between the EU's foreign affairs chief Catherine Ashton and her Estonian counterpart Urmas Paet was made on February 25 in the aftermath of the massacre.

During the call, Paet claims a doctor told him both protesters and police were shot by snipers during clashes in Kiev allegedly on the orders of the opposition.

**

I also notice that robosmith never answered the question I asked him, nor said a word about the -other- article I linked to. Once more, the question and the other article:

**

So, as I asked you before, why do think the EU and the Ukrainian government were so disintereted in investigating this evidence?

As I also wrote in the past, this UK Daily Mail article wasn't the only article that strongly suggested that Yanukovych's government wasn't behind the killings. An article from Global Research also did that, citing an Italian documentary that interviewed 3 snipers of Georgian nationality who claimed to have participated in the massacre. That article can be seen here:

https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-hidden-truth-about-ukraine-italian-documentary-bombshell-evidence-kiev-euromaidan-snipers-kill-demonstrators/5619684

**

[Scott75]

14 hours ago, User said:

14 hours ago, Scott75 said:

I can see how those supporting the western mainstream narrative would be quite pleased with that quote from Gorbachev, but it doesn't change the fact that Gorbachev -was- assured that NATO wouldn't expand "one inch eastward" of Germany. By the time of Gorbachev's interview, he was quite old. Surely you've considered the fact that he simply forgot? I've pointed to my post #237 multiple times, but I suspect that you'll never click on the link, so here is what I quoted back then once more:

LOL, so... screw the guy there, your argument is to ignore him and keep making the same assertion I have already picked apart. 

If my argument was to ignore him, I would have done what you just did with the material I quoted, which is snip it right out. Instead, I actually went back to your article that interviewed Gorbachev as I felt it deserved a response.

Gorbachev would hardly be the first politician that misremembered what happened during a rather important event and I can see why he might want to forget. In case you haven't yet figured it out, he might have deeply regreted not getting all those assurances he received into the final formal agreement. As I've pointed out in this thread numerous times, those who followed Gorbachev as President were quite vocal about their belief that the U.S. betrayed them when it came to their assurances that NATO wouldn't expand one inch east of Germany.

[NAME REMOVED]

One has to admire the way Scott stands by his convictions, no matter how incorrect they may be..

[Scott75]

14 hours ago, User said:

15 hours ago, Scott75 said:

I can see how those supporting the western mainstream narrative would be quite pleased with that quote from Gorbachev, but it doesn't change the fact that Gorbachev -was- assured that NATO wouldn't expand "one inch eastward" of Germany. By the time of Gorbachev's interview, he was quite old. Surely you've considered the fact that he simply forgot? I've pointed to my post #237 multiple times, but I suspect that you'll never click on the link, so here is what I quoted back then once more:

How was he assured? 

You notice how you frequently snip everything I quote? A lot of the time, the material I quote backs up what I say. This time is no exception. The very title of the article you snipped out makes this rather clear. Perhaps you can actually read what I quoted this time around. Once more, from the top:

**

Documents show Gorbachev was assured US wouldn't expand NATO into Central and Eastern Europe

 U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s famous “not one inch eastward” assurance about NATO expansion in his meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev on February 9, 1990, was part of a cascade of assurances about Soviet security given by Western leaders to Gorbachev and other Soviet officials throughout the process of German unification in 1990 and on into 1991, according to declassified U.S., Soviet, German, British and French documents posted today by the National Security Archive at George Washington University (http://nsarchive.gwu.edu).

The documents show that multiple national leaders were considering and rejecting Central and Eastern European membership in NATO as of early 1990 and through 1991, that discussions of NATO in the context of German unification negotiations in 1990 were not at all narrowly limited to the status of East German territory, and that subsequent Soviet and Russian complaints about being misled about NATO expansion were founded in written contemporaneous memcons and telcons at the highest levels. 

The documents reinforce former CIA Director Robert Gates’s criticism of “pressing ahead with expansion of NATO eastward [in the 1990s], when Gorbachev and others were led to believe that wouldn’t happen.”[1] The key phrase, buttressed by the documents, is “led to believe.”

President George H.W. Bush had assured Gorbachev during the Malta summit in December 1989 that the U.S. would not take advantage (“I have not jumped up and down on the Berlin Wall”) of the revolutions in Eastern Europe to harm Soviet interests; but neither Bush nor Gorbachev at that point (or for that matter, West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl) expected so soon the collapse of East Germany or the speed of German unification.[2]

The first concrete assurances by Western leaders on NATO began on January 31, 1990, when West German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher opened the bidding with a major public speech at Tutzing, in Bavaria, on German unification. The U.S. Embassy in Bonn (see Document 1) informed Washington that Genscher made clear “that the changes in Eastern Europe and the German unification process must not lead to an ‘impairment of Soviet security interests.’ Therefore, NATO should rule out an ‘expansion of its territory towards the east, i.e. moving it closer to the Soviet borders.’” The Bonn cable also noted Genscher’s proposal to leave the East German territory out of NATO military structures even in a unified Germany in NATO.[3] ...

Read entire article at National Security Archive

**

Source:

https://www.historynewsnetwork.org/article/documents-show-gorbachev-was-assured-us-wouldnt-ex

[User]

9 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

I put you on ignore because you refuse to acknowledge the truth and you're a mouthy id10t, not because I was "running from you".

You are one of the most rude and insulting people on this forum... and a coward. Yes, you run and hide like the coward you are. You can dish it out, but you can't take it. 

9 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Just look at your current post, dummy. You neglected to even say 1 word about a litany of claims I made that all drew snotty insults from you and the leftard horde here, and you've made this one statement into your hill to die on:

Why would I? That was not the subject. I am not interested in your same old dumb dishonest claims we have already argued before when you are avoiding the one dumb and dishonest claim this discussion was currently about. 

9 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

I just said that the US gave their word, and Helmut Kohl and other NATO representatives did the same thing.

Except, the "US" did not give their word at all. Nor did the others... and you are in fact arguing that "word" was some kind of binding formal agreement, when it was not. 

9 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Where we differ is that I think that we should honour the words that came out of our mouths, and you think that only signed agreements need to be adhered to. We just have wildly different standards of integrity, and that's why we don't see eye to eye. 

If only James Baker were the King of America for life and his word was somehow the word for all of America for all time... it is not, and hell, as I have already pointed out to your dumb dishonest lying a$$ before, even he said after he had no such authority to make any such binding offer. 

And the day you give a shit about integrity... man, I might fall over out of my chair. You have yet to demonstrate you care about that here yourself. 

[Scott75]

19 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Do you get the feeling that you have to explain the same things over and over to these guys? 

Not a feeling, it's an absolute certainty. I even take to telling many of my ideological opponents that I'm repeating what I've said in the hopes that they actually read more of what I write or quote the second time around. At least one of them has taken to calling it spam, not realizing that what they call spam is in fact that information that they find inconvenient. Now, I will grant that once in a blue moon, they may have some point that would invalidate at least some of the information, but it can take a long time for them to actually express this in a way that I can understand. 

19 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Truth is, inconvenient facts just don't sink in.

Yes. However, I would extend this to just about everyone, if not everyone, if said person holds a strongly held belief that is mistaken. When a person has such a belief, it can be very hard to persuade them that their belief is mistaken. Methods that can be employed to sustain one's mistaken belief can frequently be to filter out information that doesn't fit in with one's belief, or to misinterpret it. Thus, the need to frequently repeat points that these people have filtered out or misinterpreted.

Edited February 11 by Scott75

[User]

5 hours ago, Scott75 said:

You notice how you frequently snip everything I quote? A lot of the time, the material I quote backs up what I say. This time is no exception. The very title of the article you snipped out makes this rather clear. Perhaps you can actually read what I quoted this time around. Once more, from the top:

Here is an idea, quote the relevent sentence or paragraph and make your argument. What you are doing is just filibustering with spam. I don't play dumb games. 

Even here, we have already discussed what James Baker said. You constantly reposting it doesn't prove anything more than your inability to make a good argument. 

 

 

6 hours ago, Scott75 said:

If my argument was to ignore him, I would have done what you just did with the material I quoted, which is snip it right out. Instead, I actually went back to your article that interviewed Gorbachev as I felt it deserved a response.

No, you responded to what I said, sure, but the crux of your argument was to just ignore what Gorbchev said and dismiss it because you think he was old. 

You have no counter argument other than to ignore what he said. 

[User]

6 hours ago, Scott75 said:

As I've pointed out in this thread numerous times, those who followed Gorbachev as President were quite vocal about their belief that the U.S. betrayed them when it came to their assurances that NATO wouldn't expand one inch east of Germany.

The argument is not about how much you worship and believe Russian propaganda. It is about what actually happened that day, not that Putin is really mad and feels betrayed. 

 

[User]

6 hours ago, Scott75 said:

I find it rather ironic that on the one hand, you laugh at the notion of "the spirit of the treaty" and yet on the other, you disagree with my statement that U.S. official statements are generally worthless.

Worthless in what context?

You are here trying to make some convoluted and dishonest argument that somehow someone like James Baker was not only making a formal and binding agreement (he wasn't) but that he had the power to do so. Your false arguments about what was happening and the power he had doesn't make him an example for how US Official Statements are generally worthless. 

6 hours ago, Scott75 said:

Quoting from it:

Yeah, look at the last line in your quote. There was no agreement, only terms being discussed. This is how negotiations and talks work. People make proposals but that doesn't mean they were ever actually agreed upon in the end and after the formal agreement is made, you don't get to come back and say hey, in negotiations you said X!!! Well, those were negotiations and dialogue, not an actual agreement to anything. 

 

[WestCanMan]

7 hours ago, Scott75 said:

 

• Leaked phone call suggests anti-government protesters hired the snipers

We could all manufacture a 'leaked' phone call where two people say something which they both know is untrue, but it's also highly unlikely that snipers were used for 'crowd control" lol. That's just not what snipers are deployed to do. Riot police, mounted police, tear gas and water cannons are far more effective overall. 

If snipers picked off people who were throwing "petrol bombs", boo-hoo. 

 

Hamas's propaganda outlets are also all over the "they have bad snipers" video strategy.

Hamas worshippers are shown videos of kids getting sniped in Gaza, where the IDF is blamed for it, and then they show clips of Israeli soldiers dancing. 

Inside their heads, the hapless, naive little Jew-haters splice the videos together to form incontrovertible evidence that the Israelis have their soldiers out murdering children for fun.

I tell them: "I could take a video of a kid getting shot from January, and then show a video of a sniper from July, and then soldiers dancing because Sinwar died, and put them all together, and how would you know if they all fit together while you're across the Atlantic Ocean, just looking at your phone? Did you see the Israeli sniper shoot the kid? Were they both visible in the video at the same time? Do you think that Hamas is above shooting one of their own children to make a video like this?", to which they always reply "Yes, of course Hamas is above it", while conveniently forgetting that Hamas brags about killing women and children, Hamas gives lifetime pensions for people who do that or to the families of suicide bombers, and they knew when Hamas started this war by killing Jewish kids that it was inevitable that children would be killed - because Hamas stores their rockets where civilians are concentrated. 

 

Logic and reason clearly aren't part of this process: it's all emotion. Hamas and CNN know how to stroke the limbic systems of their little cultist puppets to make them dance like monkeys.