re: Latest Updates: Russia-Ukraine Conflict

quote:

---

If Poland, Slovakia, and Romania want to fight Russia, we should draw up an agreement to at least temporarily excuse them from NATO. Meaning, no expectation of Article V help.

---

Article V is not set in stone. For Article V to be enacted requires a major of the Ambassadors to NATO for the NATO nations to agree that any attack on a NATO meets the qualifications for Article V. If the majority of NATO ambassador vote in favor of approving the Article V request then the USA and the other members are committed to fight. However if the vote fails then nobody is common to fight. Margaret Thatcher didn’t try to invoke Article V when the Falklands were attacked because she knew that most of the NATO nations would not support it even though the British overseas territory are considered to be protected areas of NATO. The only time Article V was invoked on 9/12/01 after the 9/11 attacks. Even then it took 6 weeks for NATO investigate, debate, and approve the Article V request from the USA. LINK

So if Poland or some other NATO nation attacks Russia or its forces and Russia responds against them accordingly NATO doesn’t have to honor the Article V request because the attacked member was the instigator. However, if Poland attacks Russia and Russia then attacks Estonia or someone other than NATO member then NATO would honor the Article V request because the attacked member was not the instigator.

quote:

---

I have a feeling that if we banned some non-influential political parties from American politics, some people here wouldn't be very happy.

---

On principle, on a personal level, I don’t condone banning of political parties. That being said, we as a country collectively condoned the practice when Germany banned the Nazi Party and Russia banned the CPSU in 1991. Seems weird to get all in a twist about it now if you weren’t otherwise taking a stand against those previous cases.

quote:

---

See the Communist Control Act of 1954. The United States bans political parties as well.

---

Technically, it’s constitutional to ban the party if the party itself is committed to overthrowing the US government.

There is a communist party in existence today called CPUSA, but they don’t have an explicit party plank of overthrowing the government and they haven’t fielded a candidate for national office in years.

quote:

---

You need to get laid. Goddamn, you're wound too fricking tight.

---

It’s unbecoming of you to be so sensitive. It was a terrible comparison, Someone had to call you out on it. And while we’re on the subject, do we need to revisit putins history of dealing with opposition politics?

quote:

---

You're too high strung, dude

---

What gave it away? My two posts today?

quote:

---

. Pack a bowl, jerk off, do some yoga. S

---

My vinyasa studio is closed on Sunday’s. I hope I survive the night!

quote:

---

You think there would be an uproar if, while we were actively being invaded by Russia with entire country operating under martial law, the federal government shut down Communist Party USA?

---

I think if someone shut down political groups that represent the sentiments of a sizeable portion of the population there would likely be some push-back, yes.

quote:

---

What gave it away? My two posts today?

---

No, you flying off the handle like you always do. It's Sunday. Relax. I'll pray for you.

quote:

---

See the Communist Control Act of 1954. The United States bans political parties as well.

---

Good. If we lived in a civilized country communism and all of its other forms would be more hated and ostracized than fascism and neo-nazism. It’s easily the most evil ideology in the world.

quote:

---

You're too high strung, dude. Pack a bowl, jerk off, do some yoga. Something. You and OML are both gonna have a fricking heart attacks begore this war is over.

---

Silver linings to our present stormy weather.

(no message)