Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 104

Thread: Russian ex-spy critically ill after exposure to a "substance"

  1. #46
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    03 Sep 17
    Posts
    957
    Quote Originally Posted by snapper View Post
    You asserted that "The NATO allies -MINUS THE AMERICANS- were the ones who invoked ARTICLE 5!". The US was "too busy". That there zero US input - that all the others got together and invoked Article 5 "MINUS THE AMERICANS". You also say it was passed by the Parliament; maybe the Canadian one. Can't find a vote in the UK Parliament on Article 5. There were issues; did Article 5 cover acts of 'terrorism' etc... But very clearly the US was involved in the decision to invoke Article 5. The US Ambassador Nick Burns spoke to Toria Nuland (then his deputy) and passed on a paper about invoking Article 5 to Colin Powell; Powell said go ahead and say this is what we want to do and spoke to Bush who agreed. To describe this as being "The NATO allies -MINUS THE AMERICANS" when the whole US hierarchy from the President down through the Secretary of State is involved in the decision making process seems to me to terminologically inexact.
    You know, this proves you know squat all. You did not even read the North Atlantic Treaty. ARTICLE 5 is a Declaration of War. Yes, it did passed through British Parliment. Else, the SAS would not be allowed in Afghanistan. And again, the Americans DID NOT asked for NATO to invoke ARTICLE 5!

    Here in plain simple black and white from your source!

    NATO officials said the United States had not asked for the statement, but had said they would welcome it.
    Last edited by WABs_OOE; 19 Mar 18, at 17:20.

  2. #47
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Aug 08
    Location
    UK/Europe
    Posts
    4,672
    Well no invoking Article is NOT necessarily a declaration war:

    Article 5

    The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

    Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.
    So wrong again there. First you said that Article 5 was not invoked; it was. Then you claimed it was nothing to do with the US that Article 5 was invoked; when the US President and Secretary of State agree to it I find it difficult to claim that the it was nothing to do with the US. Yes sure it was NATO as a whole which agreed to invoke Article but do you think that would or could have happened if the US had not been consulted and agreed? Seriously this is silly.

    Nor by the way is a vote in the UK Parliament required to deploy British special services.
    Last edited by snapper; 19 Mar 18, at 18:16.

  3. #48
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    03 Sep 17
    Posts
    957
    THIS IS WHAT I WROTE!

    Quote Originally Posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    If the Americans didn't ask for ARTICLE 5 over 11 Sept, the Brits won't ask for it over this.
    Get your head out of your arse! YOUR OWN SOURCE COMFIRMED WHAT I STATED! You're the one standing in the wrong here, not me! Tap Dance around the point all you want. You're still freaking wrong at every point!

    So, you're telling me that the PM can initiate an Act of War without passing through Parliment? Not a chance in hell!
    Last edited by WABs_OOE; 19 Mar 18, at 18:48.

  4. #49
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    03 Sep 17
    Posts
    957
    And here for your digestion about Britain and 9-11

    Britain at war: a history of parliamentary votes and debate - Telegraph

    Afghanistan 2001

    No vote. Parliament recalled on October 8, the day after the American and British-led bombing of Osama bin Laden terrorist camps and Taliban installations began.

    It was the third recall of Parliament since the September 11 attacks on America.

  5. #50
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Aug 08
    Location
    UK/Europe
    Posts
    4,672
    Quote Originally Posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    THIS IS WHAT I WROTE!

    Get your head out of your arse! YOUR OWN SOURCE COMFIRMED WHAT I STATED! You're the one standing in the wrong here, not me! Tap Dance around the point all you want. You're still freaking wrong at every point!

    So, you're telling me that the PM can initiate an Act of War without the approval of Parliment? Not a chance in hell!
    But the Yanks - who you claimed had nothing to do with it - DID agree. Their Ambassador raised the issue, his Duputy (Nuland) agreed, Colin Powel agreed and so did Bush. To say that the "US did not invoke Article 5" would be in a strictly legal sense correct but to say that Article 5 would have been activated without US consultation and agreement (and persuasion in some cases) would be incorrect. NATO acts collectively so formally "NATO invoked Article 5" in the correct language but the simple fact is it is not going to happen if the US disagrees or is not even asked. The US was attacked and is the single largest player in NATO. They don't agree - no Article 5 and if you think otherwise you are not being realistic.

  6. #51
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Aug 08
    Location
    UK/Europe
    Posts
    4,672
    Quote Originally Posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    So, you're telling me that the PM can initiate an Act of War without passing through Parliment? Not a chance in hell!
    Deploying special forces is unattributable and not a "declaration of war". Britain never "declared war" on Libya in the Saddam business but the special forces were in and the RAF bombed them. Nobody "declares war" anymore and the whole point of special forces is that they can act under cover. Having a public debate in Parliament on whether they should be sent to somewhere would rather destroy the point. During the Falklands they were on the Argentine mainland but there was no "declaration of war" on Argentina.

  7. #52
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    13 Nov 07
    Posts
    3,848
    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    I think you've got it there with the elections. This is about domestic politics and making Russia great again.

    He isn't gloating about it but the people know. He's doing it because he's insecure.

    What if the CCP is in the same boat and for a while now.

    All that nonsense in the SCS for the last ten years. Just a live drama for the home crowd? fighting over rocks makes sense now because militarily they are useless.

    Create this aggressive exterior, rile up the neighbours because internally they're weak and soft.

    This is what makes these countries dangerous

    What if reforms fail (any reforms is empty talk since the lat ten years in Russia's case)

    What if the economy tanks

    What if you get millions of Russians or Chinese demonstrating on the streets

    What does the management do ?
    Yep.

    Now transplant above to A nuke armed NK or Iran.

  8. #53
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    03 Sep 17
    Posts
    957
    Quote Originally Posted by snapper View Post
    But the Yanks - who you claimed had nothing to do with it - DID agree.
    Stop your dancing. I said from the start, the US NEVER asked for it and these ARE YOUR WORDS.

    Quote Originally Posted by snapper View Post
    But you were saying Article 5 was not invoked after 9/11 when it was. I agree though I think it highly unlikely that the UK will ask for it to be invoked (as the US did then). See https://www.nato.int/docu/review/200...5/EN/index.htm
    Again from your own link, the US NEVER asked for it. They accepted it but they NEVER asked for it.

    Quote Originally Posted by snapper View Post
    Their Ambassador raised the issue,
    No, he did not. He forwarded the issue to his boss but he was not involved in drafting it.

    Quote Originally Posted by snapper View Post
    his Duputy (Nuland) agreed, Colin Powel agreed and so did Bush.
    So what? None of them asked NATO to invoke Article 5.

    Quote Originally Posted by snapper View Post
    To say that the "US did not invoke Article 5" would be in a strictly legal sense correct but to say that Article 5 would have been activated without US consultation and agreement (and persuasion in some cases) would be incorrect.
    HORSE PUCKY! At no time did the US needed NATO's help. In fact, outside of NORAD, NATO assets were not even being considered in those first days. The US needed no one to come to her rescue!

    Quote Originally Posted by snapper View Post
    NATO acts collectively so formally "NATO invoked Article 5" in the correct language but the simple fact is it is not going to happen if the US disagrees or is not even asked. The US was attacked and is the single largest player in NATO. They don't agree - no Article 5 and if you think otherwise you are not being realistic.
    This has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FACT THAT THE US DID NOT ASKED! You're just trying to squirm your way out of this.

    Quote Originally Posted by snapper View Post
    Deploying special forces is unattributable and not a "declaration of war". Britain never "declared war" on Libya in the Saddam business but the special forces were in and the RAF bombed them. Nobody "declares war" anymore and the whole point of special forces is that they can act under cover. Having a public debate in Parliament on whether they should be sent to somewhere would rather destroy the point. During the Falklands they were on the Argentine mainland but there was no "declaration of war" on Argentina.
    Oh for Pete sakes! Under Cover SF! What horse puckey. Let me guess, you relying on movies for your info.

    If they are wearing a British uniform, then they are acting on behalf of the UK and subject to all the Laws of Armed Combat and the Geneva Conventions. If they are wearing our uniforms and not obeying our lawful commands, then they are traitors and subject to the QR&R. Parliment must be informed of these actions in order for them to be legal. You can play with the language and skirt the issues somewhat but what you cannot do is to fail to inform Parliment of military actions acting on behalf of the country.

  9. #54
    Global Moderator
    Comrade Commissar
    TopHatter's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Sep 03
    Posts
    16,238
    US expels 60 Russian diplomats, closes Seattle consulate

    WASHINGTON (AP) — The Trump administration expelled 60 Russian diplomats on Monday and ordered Russia's consulate in Seattle to close, as the United States and European nations sought to jointly punish Moscow for its alleged role in poisoning an ex-spy in Britain.

    Senior Trump administration officials said all 60 Russians were spies working in the U.S. under diplomatic cover, including a dozen at Russia's mission to the United Nations. The officials said the administration was taking the action to send a message to Russia's leaders about the "unacceptably high" number of Russian intelligence operatives in the U.S

    The expelled Russians will have seven days to leave the U.S, said the officials. They weren't authorized to be identified by name and requested anonymity. They added that the Seattle consulate is a counter-intelligence concern because of its proximity to a U.S. Navy base.

    The move was one of the most significant actions President Donald Trump's administration has taken to date to push back on Moscow and Russian President Vladimir Putin. Less than a week ago, Trump congratulated Putin by phone for his re-election but didn't raise the spy case, renewing questions about whether the U.S. president is too soft on the Kremlin.

    The U.S. actions came as more than a dozen nations, including those in Russia's neighborhood, were expected to announce similar steps to reduce Russia's diplomatic presence in their countries or other actions to punish Moscow. Poland summoned Russia's ambassador for talks, and its foreign ministry was among several in Europe planning news conferences later Monday.

    Last week, EU chief Donald Tusk predicted that member states would introduce measures against Moscow over its suspected role in the spy poisoning case.

    Britain has already expelled 23 Russian diplomats, accusing them of being undeclared intelligence agents, which led Russia to expel the same number of British diplomats. The European Union has already recalled its ambassador to Russia.

    Britain has accused Moscow of perpetrating the attack. The U.S., France and Germany have agreed it's highly likely that's the case. Link
    _______________________

    Looks like our semi-literate shitlord in the Oval Office managed to do something right for a change.
    Far better it is to dare mighty things, than to take rank with those poor, timid spirits who know neither victory nor defeat ~ Theodore Roosevelt

  10. #55
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    13 Nov 07
    Posts
    3,848
    He's been doing pretty much everything right (get it? Right? Wink wink) while the left screech like nave children.

    The funny thing is Trump is no great statesman. It's just that until he stirred things up we had been lulled into not seeing how truly moronic the status quo had become.

    It was like the boiling of a frog: our national policies had been slow boiled in a sauce of smugness, arrogance, complacency and stupidity.

  11. #56
    Former Staff Senior Contributor Ironduke's Avatar
    Join Date
    02 Aug 03
    Location
    Minneapolis
    Posts
    11,653
    Trump expelling 60 Russian diplomats in wake of UK nerve agent attack

    The United States, European Union countries, Canada and Ukraine expelled more than 100 Russian diplomats on Monday in response to Russia's alleged use of a nerve agent to poison a former Russian spy living in the United Kingdom.

    President Donald Trump on Monday ordered the expulsion of 60 Russian diplomats the US identified as intelligence agents and the closure of the Russian consulate in Seattle, the most forceful action Trump has taken against Russia to date. Of those being expelled, 48 of the alleged intelligence agents work at the Russian embassy in Washington and 12 are posted at the United Nations in New York, senior administration officials said.
    https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/26/polit...ats/index.html

  12. #57
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    14 Mar 08
    Posts
    2,006
    Quote Originally Posted by citanon View Post
    He's been doing pretty much everything right (get it? Right? Wink wink) while the left screech like nave children.

    The funny thing is Trump is no great statesman. It's just that until he stirred things up we had been lulled into not seeing how truly moronic the status quo had become.

    It was like the boiling of a frog: our national policies had been slow boiled in a sauce of smugness, arrogance, complacency and stupidity.
    It would be more convincing if he'd stop aiming for a 'great personal relationship" with Putin.

  13. #58
    Global Moderator
    Comrade Commissar
    TopHatter's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Sep 03
    Posts
    16,238
    Quote Originally Posted by citanon View Post
    He's been doing pretty much everything right (get it? Right? Wink wink) while the left screech like nave children.
    Yeah. I uh, I have to dispute that claim "doing pretty much everything right". This man is a disgrace to the Office. Also, I don't know if you've noticed or not, but it's not merely the left that's criticizing him.

    Quote Originally Posted by citanon View Post
    The funny thing is Trump is no great statesman.
    I wouldn't give him credit as a semi-adequate human being, let alone a statesman.
    Far better it is to dare mighty things, than to take rank with those poor, timid spirits who know neither victory nor defeat ~ Theodore Roosevelt

  14. #59
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    7,228
    Quote Originally Posted by Skywatcher View Post
    It would be more convincing if he'd stop aiming for a 'great personal relationship" with Putin.
    The only brake left to preventing further detoriation in relations. If the dems were in charge things would have been worse by now.

    This guy is still on talking terms Obama was not

    What isn't mentioned is how many Russian diplomats left in the US as a percentage. Sending 60 out is how much of a drop from earlier.
    Last edited by Double Edge; 26 Mar 18, at 21:10.

  15. #60
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    13 Nov 07
    Posts
    3,848
    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    The only brake left to preventing further detoriation in relations. If the dems were in charge things would have been worse by now.

    This guy is still on talking terms Obama was not

    What isn't mentioned is how many Russian diplomats left in the US as a percentage. Sending 60 out is how much of a drop from earlier.
    Exactly.

    "DO NOT CONGRTULATE" ???

    It's not just the left that's dumb. The man is going to be leading Russia for another 5 years and you are going to call him up just to give him petty insults that he'll perceive as both weak AND personally threatening?

    Trump assuaged Putin's ego with his words, then he responded to a real Russian threat with real actions.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Obama Will "...calibrate..." Russian/U.S. Relationship
    By S2 in forum International Politics
    Replies: 131
    Last Post: 14 Sep 13,, 07:15
  2. Replies: 17
    Last Post: 07 Sep 09,, 17:55
  3. Replies: 18
    Last Post: 02 Sep 08,, 05:20
  4. Replies: 12
    Last Post: 25 Aug 08,, 23:13
  5. Russian tank "Black Eagle" ("object 640")
    By foxhound_nn in forum Ground Warfare
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 27 Dec 07,, 05:53

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •