Supposedly "Pro-Russian" Trump Announces He's Pulling U.S. Out of the INF Treaty, Infuriates Putin

[iceberg]

getting rid of the treaty is the military industrial complex's DREAM OF A LIFETIME! Another arms RACE.

WONDERFUL.

No healthcare for all, but TRILLIONS SPENT on nukes again.

You guys are so messed up in the head....

Sanction the son of a bitch, from here to eternity... Putin will learn to abide by the treaty....

don't go and reward them like Trump, by removing sanctions AND ending this treaty.

I don't see HOW you Trumpsters can live with yourselves for these terribly bad decisions to make America LAST?

Are you all Putin-ites? Seriously, where is your allegiance to your own Nation?

You apparently have no idea what you're talking about.

Putin is currently violating the treaty..

It takes a boatload of stupid to think the US getting out of the treaty helps Putin.

Look who's talking about stupidity....

With the treaty, you have a means to punish the law breaker, with allied help, with the law on your side... ie. Sanctions.

Without a treaty, this is impossible .

Without a treaty, it becomes an arms race, with no holds barred....

A HUMONGOUS COST to us tax payers, a gift horse to the Military industrial complex.

if a country chooses to not honor a treaty, first step is to try again to ask them to. if they continue to not honor it, sanctions then perhaps military actions depending on the circumstances. however, you don't have to have a treaty with someone to conduct sanctions now do you?

What Are Economic Sanctions?

i see nothing of "we must have a treaty to implement sanctions". can you show me where this is a requirement?

what i see is:

"On September 23, President George W. Bush signed EO 13224 that provided Treasury Department officials with far-reaching authority to freeze the assets and financial transactions of individuals and other entities suspected of supporting terrorism. "

now - we're conducting sanctions against individuals (did we have a treaty with them?) and other entities (again, where's our treaty?) and i'm pretty sure we don't have treaties with them.

We enact sanctions together with our allies to be more impactful, on people and countries who have done something WRONG,

without the treaty, Russia would be doing nothing wrong with their nuclear capability expansion.

that is not the argument. you said we can't impose sanctions w/o a treaty and that is 100% incorrect. is it easier with one? maybe. you'll get more support. but it's not required.

you do speak emotionally a lot. wrong almost as often.

 

[Care4all]

getting rid of the treaty is the military industrial complex's DREAM OF A LIFETIME! Another arms RACE.

WONDERFUL.

No healthcare for all, but TRILLIONS SPENT on nukes again.

You guys are so messed up in the head....

Sanction the son of a bitch, from here to eternity... Putin will learn to abide by the treaty....

don't go and reward them like Trump, by removing sanctions AND ending this treaty.

I don't see HOW you Trumpsters can live with yourselves for these terribly bad decisions to make America LAST?

Are you all Putin-ites? Seriously, where is your allegiance to your own Nation?

You apparently have no idea what you're talking about.

Putin is currently violating the treaty..

It takes a boatload of stupid to think the US getting out of the treaty helps Putin.

Look who's talking about stupidity....

With the treaty, you have a means to punish the law breaker, with allied help, with the law on your side... ie. Sanctions.

Without a treaty, this is impossible .

Without a treaty, it becomes an arms race, with no holds barred....

A HUMONGOUS COST to us tax payers, a gift horse to the Military industrial complex.

if a country chooses to not honor a treaty, first step is to try again to ask them to. if they continue to not honor it, sanctions then perhaps military actions depending on the circumstances. however, you don't have to have a treaty with someone to conduct sanctions now do you?

What Are Economic Sanctions?

i see nothing of "we must have a treaty to implement sanctions". can you show me where this is a requirement?

what i see is:

"On September 23, President George W. Bush signed EO 13224 that provided Treasury Department officials with far-reaching authority to freeze the assets and financial transactions of individuals and other entities suspected of supporting terrorism. "

now - we're conducting sanctions against individuals (did we have a treaty with them?) and other entities (again, where's our treaty?) and i'm pretty sure we don't have treaties with them.

We enact sanctions together with our allies to be more impactful, on people and countries who have done something WRONG,

without the treaty, Russia would be doing nothing wrong with their nuclear capability expansion.

that is not the argument. you said we can't impose sanctions w/o a treaty and that is 100% incorrect. is it easier with one? maybe. you'll get more support. but it's not required.

you do speak emotionally a lot. wrong almost as often.

you are nit picking, with a bunch of contortions and gymnastics to try to make a point that is irrelevant.

 

[iceberg]

You apparently have no idea what you're talking about.

Putin is currently violating the treaty..

It takes a boatload of stupid to think the US getting out of the treaty helps Putin.

Look who's talking about stupidity....

With the treaty, you have a means to punish the law breaker, with allied help, with the law on your side... ie. Sanctions.

Without a treaty, this is impossible .

Without a treaty, it becomes an arms race, with no holds barred....

A HUMONGOUS COST to us tax payers, a gift horse to the Military industrial complex.

if a country chooses to not honor a treaty, first step is to try again to ask them to. if they continue to not honor it, sanctions then perhaps military actions depending on the circumstances. however, you don't have to have a treaty with someone to conduct sanctions now do you?

What Are Economic Sanctions?

i see nothing of "we must have a treaty to implement sanctions". can you show me where this is a requirement?

what i see is:

"On September 23, President George W. Bush signed EO 13224 that provided Treasury Department officials with far-reaching authority to freeze the assets and financial transactions of individuals and other entities suspected of supporting terrorism. "

now - we're conducting sanctions against individuals (did we have a treaty with them?) and other entities (again, where's our treaty?) and i'm pretty sure we don't have treaties with them.

We enact sanctions together with our allies to be more impactful, on people and countries who have done something WRONG,

without the treaty, Russia would be doing nothing wrong with their nuclear capability expansion.

that is not the argument. you said we can't impose sanctions w/o a treaty and that is 100% incorrect. is it easier with one? maybe. you'll get more support. but it's not required.

you do speak emotionally a lot. wrong almost as often.

you are nit picking, with a bunch of contortions and gymnastics to try to make a point that is irrelevant.

and you are broad-brushing your emotions into this cause you *feel* it should be different.

YOU said:
"we must have a treaty to implement sanctions"

and we do not. now i'm nitpicking.

 

[Lesh]

Sanctions only work if you have a consensus among allies to enforce it...and that's a lot easier to get when you can point to a treaty that is being broken.

Walk away from that treaty and you're on your own.

It was stupid to walk away.

Berg..take your nonsense elsewhere

 

[bendog]

Did anyone ever point out to Mike that drailing the Treaty is destabilizing to Nato, and that is Putin's intention with the missiles?

 

[MAGAman]

Sanctions only work if you have a consensus among allies to enforce it...and that's a lot easier to get when you can point to a treaty that is being broken.

Walk away from that treaty and you're on your own.

It was stupid to walk away.

That's just childish TDS. Russia already broke the treaty. The smelly Euros will do whatever that want, and so will America. Trying to blame Euro weakness on Trump is just dumb.

THE USSR was brought to it's knees because a Socialist economy can't compete with a captive economy in an arms race.

Allowing Putin to violate the treaty without making him worry about America protecting her own citizens is in Russia's best interest, not America's.

 

[iceberg]

Sanctions only work if you have a consensus among allies to enforce it...and that's a lot easier to get when you can point to a treaty that is being broken.

Walk away from that treaty and you're on your own.

It was stupid to walk away.

Berg..take your nonsense elsewhere

you often reply to yourself?

she made an incorrect statement, based her opinions off of it and then gets picky when i tell her her base assumption is incorrect by saying i'm getting picky by expecting her to have facts in hand about the conversation she's participating in.

if that bothers you, good.

 

[Lesh]

Sanctions only work if you have a consensus among allies to enforce it...and that's a lot easier to get when you can point to a treaty that is being broken.

Walk away from that treaty and you're on your own.

It was stupid to walk away.

Berg..take your nonsense elsewhere

you often reply to yourself?

she made an incorrect statement, based her opinions off of it and then gets picky when i tell her her base assumption is incorrect by saying i'm getting picky by expecting her to have facts in hand about the conversation she's participating in.

if that bothers you, good.

Awwww...did I interrupt your moronic distraction?

 

[iceberg]

Sanctions only work if you have a consensus among allies to enforce it...and that's a lot easier to get when you can point to a treaty that is being broken.

Walk away from that treaty and you're on your own.

It was stupid to walk away.

Berg..take your nonsense elsewhere

you often reply to yourself?

she made an incorrect statement, based her opinions off of it and then gets picky when i tell her her base assumption is incorrect by saying i'm getting picky by expecting her to have facts in hand about the conversation she's participating in.

if that bothers you, good.

Awwww...did I interrupt your moronic distraction?

dunno.

do you "feel" interrupted?

 

[zaangalewa]

Did anyone ever point out to Mike that drailing the Treaty is destabilizing to Nato, and that is Putin's intention with the missiles?

Trump and Putin have the same will in context with this missiles.

Another problem is: The reason for this sanctions are idiotic. The Krim had been a part of the Osman Empire before the Russians conquered the Krim in 1799. (In those days existed in this area "borderland" (=Ukraine), population East-Slaws - also known today under the expression "Russians"). The Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev gave in 1954 the Krim to the Soviet republic Ukraine as a present - for nothing - what's absurde. Who accepts decisions of a Soviet tyrant? But still the population was Russian and the Krim was still the main harbor of the Russian black sea fleet. Russia payed rent to the Ukraine for the own fleet. Who for heavens sake is able to think such a constellation keeps stable?

By the way: This picture shows the USA of the year 1800.

Had any US-American president ever any right to give one of the areas of one of this states to any other of this states and to "sell" its citizens to this country, which left the USA? And the USA will pay money to this country afterwards for an important part of the own fleet?