News Related To The Ukraine / Russian War

[sear]

“The difference between the almost right word and the right word is really a large matter. ’tis the difference between the lightning bug and the lightning.” Mark Twain, The Wit and Wisdom of Mark Twain: A Book of Quotations

"Precision& clarity in the use of language leads to precision & clarity of thought." G. Gordon Liddy

"The Founders felt their rebellion against England was legal." R5 #380

We're almost in accord here R5. I doubt they would have had any more remorse about it either way.

"The Founders felt their rebellion against England was legal." R5 #380

The U.S. Founders, Benjamin Franklin for famous example, knew their rebellion against KG3 was illegal, according to KG3. BUT !
The Founders also believed their rebellion was justified. "No taxation without representation", etc.
The Revolution was not their first choice, it was their last.

"It was based on abstractions about inherent individual rights, not on legislation." R5 #380

It was based on principles from Bentham and others. Not that rights come from government, but from God,
and the purpose of government was not to provide those rights, but to protect them.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that
they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that
among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.— That to
secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their
just powers from the consent of the governed ... TJ / DOI

"We put nukes in Turkey in 1951, aimed at Russia." R5 #380

We did. It took the Cuban Missile Crisis to remove them. BUT !
They were not there to expedite conquest of Russia's sovereign territory.

 

[Rigby5]

We're almost in accord here R5. I doubt they would have had any more remorse about it either way.

The U.S. Founders, Benjamin Franklin for famous example, knew their rebellion against KG3 was illegal, according to KG3. BUT !
The Founders also believed their rebellion was justified. "No taxation without representation", etc.
The Revolution was not their first choice, it was their last.


It was based on principles from Bentham and others. Not that rights come from government, but from God,
and the purpose of government was not to provide those rights, but to protect them.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that
they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that
among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.— That to
secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their
just powers from the consent of the governed ... TJ / DOI


We did. It took the Cuban Missile Crisis to remove them. BUT !
They were not there to expedite conquest of Russia's sovereign territory.

I agree the US nukes were not put in Turkey to invade Russia, but to intimidate Russia into not stopping us from invading China, Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, Nicaragua, Chile, Honduras, El Salvadore, Egypt, Iran, Palestine, etc.

 

[sear]

"The U.S. Founders, Benjamin Franklin for famous example, knew their rebellion against KG3 was illegal, according to KG3." s #381

oops
I forgot the Franklin quotation: "We must indeed all hang together, or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately." Benjamin Franklin (1706-90), U.S. statesman, writer. Comment at the signing of the Declaration of Independence, 4 July 1776, in reply to John Hancock's remark that the revolutionaries should be unanimous in their action.

" the US nukes were not put in Turkey to invade Russia, but to intimidate Russia into not stopping us from invading China, Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, Nicaragua, Chile, Honduras, El Salvadore, Egypt, Iran, Palestine, etc." R5 #382

I don't recall ever having read such assertion before. That doesn't mean it isn't true.
But it's not clear to me how whether the U.S. nukes are at Incirlik, Türkiye, or South Dakota would / could make a significant difference regarding U.S. ability to:

"intimidate Russia into not stopping us from invading China, Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, Nicaragua, Chile, Honduras, El Salvadore, Egypt, Iran, Palestine, etc." R5 #382

?

 

[Rigby5]

oops
I forgot the Franklin quotation: "We must indeed all hang together, or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately." Benjamin Franklin (1706-90), U.S. statesman, writer. Comment at the signing of the Declaration of Independence, 4 July 1776, in reply to John Hancock's remark that the revolutionaries should be unanimous in their action.


I don't recall ever having read such assertion before. That doesn't mean it isn't true.
But it's not clear to me how whether the U.S. nukes are at Incirlik, Türkiye, or South Dakota would / could make a significant difference regarding U.S. ability to:

?

The difference is King George III was a dictator, so could make anything technically illegal arbitrarily.
However, the belief of the Founders was that dictatorships were inherently illegal and that only the inherent laws of a republic were legal because they were based on the defense of inherent rights of individuals.

That means legislators in a republic don't really get to decide what is legal or not, and what is legal or not is not really based on legislation.
Instead, legality can only really be based on what is necessary in order to defend inherent individual rights.
So these abstract values always exist, and Congress is just supposed to select the appropriate wording and punishments for violations.
They are not supposed to just make things up.
Like Prohibition and the War on Drugs are both inherently wrong because they do not defend inherent rights of individuals.
Those instead are medical problems police are totally inappropriate to handle.

The difference between nukes on Russia's border and nukes in South Dakota is that the ones on the border can hit their targets before they can launch.
That allows the US to avoid MAD, and makes a successful first strike possible, without significant retaliation.
Which is why the US can never be allowed to put nukes on Russia's border.
MAD is the only thing stopping the US from taking over the entire world.
If that seems far fetched that the US would be that offensive, then why did we put those nukes in Turkey, give the Mujahideen all those Redeyes, give the Ukraine all those drones, etc.?
None of that was remotely "defensive".

 

[sear]

"The difference is King George III was a dictator, so could make anything technically illegal arbitrarily." R5 #384

Even if true, irrelevant.
What nation, including the most democratic of republics applies / enforces a policy of any section of its sovereign territory, or any segment of its population
has full permission to secede without interference from the host nation?

The U.S. was FOUNDED on such secession, and yet, and yet, and yet
within its own secessionist law is the enumerated prohibition against such action.

---

United States Constitution
ARTICLE1. SECTION 8.
1 The Congress shall have Power To ...
ARTICLE1. SECTION 8. 15
... suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

---

"MAD is the only thing stopping the US from taking over the entire world." R5 #384

If that's what it is, that's what it is.
It is not the only possible explanation.
It is not the most plausible explanation.

I'm not trying to wriggle out from Trump's expansionist delusions. But
Trump is mentally ill.
The herd of GOP elephants is stampeding through the living-room,
and the Republican party sits passively by doing more to contribute to the destruction than to restrain it.

That's not to deny Trump's countless excesses.
Instead it's to acknowledge they are a fluke, an exception tied to one man, NOT
a generations long institutional commitment to obtain political dominion over the planet verified by centuries of history.

"Over the years, the United States has sent many of its fine young men and women into great peril to fight for freedom beyond our borders. The only amount of land we have ever asked for in return is enough to bury those that did not return." U.S. Secretary Colin Powell

That's not an endorsement. It's not a validation. It's a quotation.

 

[Rigby5]

Even if true, irrelevant.
What nation, including the most democratic of republics applies / enforces a policy of any section of its sovereign territory, or any segment of its population
has full permission to secede without interference from the host nation?

The U.S. was FOUNDED on such secession, and yet, and yet, and yet
within its own secessionist law is the enumerated prohibition against such action.

---

United States Constitution
ARTICLE1. SECTION 8.
1 The Congress shall have Power To ...
ARTICLE1. SECTION 8. 15
... suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

---

If that's what it is, that's what it is.
It is not the only possible explanation.
It is not the most plausible explanation.

I'm not trying to wriggle out from Trump's expansionist delusions. But
Trump is mentally ill.
The herd of GOP elephants is stampeding through the living-room,
and the Republican party sits passively by doing more to contribute to the destruction than to restrain it.

That's not to deny Trump's countless excesses.
Instead it's to acknowledge they are a fluke, an exception tied to one man, NOT
a generations long institutional commitment to obtain political dominion over the planet verified by centuries of history.

"Over the years, the United States has sent many of its fine young men and women into great peril to fight for freedom beyond our borders. The only amount of land we have ever asked for in return is enough to bury those that did not return." U.S. Secretary Colin Powell

That's not an endorsement. It's not a validation. It's a quotation.

When the government violates rights, like taxation without representation, then the government is a criminal and you have the authority to utterly destroy the offending government.
The fact you can only secede and remove the local offenders is just a side effect from the need to end the violation of rights by any means possible.
It is only inherent individual rights that determine what is legal or not, and not legislation.

The US has been the offender even before Trump's insane attacks on Iran and Venezuela.
The Highway of Death was horrendous.
Colin Powell never did repudiate his awful speeches lying about Iraq and al QAeda, so it would seem to me he was not just mistaken, but deliberately lied.

Can secession ever be illegal?
Not really.
And in fact it can be a duty and responsibility when crimes are being committed.

The only we have to accept some of these imperfections is that the alternative is even worse.

 

[sear]

"When the government violates rights, like taxation without representation, then the government is a criminal and you have the authority to utterly destroy the offending government." R5 #386

My substantially lay opinion is you have over-stated.
Individual sovereignty empowers a citizen to sidestep authoritarian government infringements & usurpations. BUT !!
Such citizen is not necessarily representative of the broader national population.
For the remainder of the population, the governance provided even if not perfect may be acceptable.
One citizen with a grievance does not have legitimate authority to "utterly destroy" the offending government.

democratic principles apply, sort of.
The Confederate States of America was not merely a few grumpy old men dizzy from a little too much mint julep.

1. South Carolina (December 20, 1860)[56]
2. Mississippi (January 9, 1861)[57]
3. Florida (January 10)[58]
4. Alabama (January 11)[59]
5. Georgia (January 19)[60]
6. Louisiana (January 26)[61]
7. Texas (February 1; referendum February 23)[62]
8. Virginia (April 17; referendum May 23, 1861)[64]
9. Arkansas (May 6)[65]
10. Tennessee (May 7; referendum June 8)[66]
11. North Carolina (May 20)[67] *

Rough goin'.

"The US has been the offender even before Trump's insane attacks on Iran and Venezuela.
The Highway of Death was horrendous." R5 #386

"Horrendous." - fine - BUT !
GHWB didn't do that because he wanted more sand.
It was mortal combat, not U.S. territorial conquest.

"Can secession ever be illegal?
Not really." R5 #386

According to the United States Constitution, really.

* source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_of_America

 

[Rigby5]

My substantially lay opinion is you have over-stated.
Individual sovereignty empowers a citizen to sidestep authoritarian government infringements & usurpations. BUT !!
Such citizen is not necessarily representative of the broader national population.
For the remainder of the population, the governance provided even if not perfect may be acceptable.
One citizen with a grievance does not have legitimate authority to "utterly destroy" the offending government.

democratic principles apply, sort of.
The Confederate States of America was not merely a few grumpy old men dizzy from a little too much mint julep.

1. South Carolina (December 20, 1860)[56]
2. Mississippi (January 9, 1861)[57]
3. Florida (January 10)[58]
4. Alabama (January 11)[59]
5. Georgia (January 19)[60]
6. Louisiana (January 26)[61]
7. Texas (February 1; referendum February 23)[62]
8. Virginia (April 17; referendum May 23, 1861)[64]
9. Arkansas (May 6)[65]
10. Tennessee (May 7; referendum June 8)[66]
11. North Carolina (May 20)[67] *

Rough goin'.


"Horrendous." - fine - BUT !
GHWB didn't do that because he wanted more sand.
It was mortal combat, not U.S. territorial conquest.


According to the United States Constitution, really.

* source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_of_America

The reason I disagree is that in my opinion, the rights of any one single individual are supreme over the mere desires of the vast majority.
That is important, otherwise you can have slavery or any abuses, as long as the majority wants it.
And that is what prevents secession from being illegal.
While undesirable, secession is a means of preventing an abuse of rights by a corrupt majority.

That does no necessarily defend the secession of the Confederacy, since it would depend on why they actually seceded?
If it was over slavery, then they were the ones harming individual rights and were in the wrong.
It is was over tariffs on British goods, then they could have had some justification over secession.

The Constitution is wrong when it tries to outlaw secession.
Its not a perfect document, and was amended incorrectly many times, like slavery, Prohibition, federal drug laws, etc.
For example, if NY wanted to join into an economic union with Canada instead of the US, that would be their right.
Since the US is doing things based on greed instead of rights or morality, like tariffs, the Constitution can no longer be binding.

By the way. what GHWB committed that horrendous atrocity of the Highway of Death over was the oil under the sand, not just the sand itself.
He did not want to let Saddam's troops and tanks get back to Iraq because he wanted to ensure we could later invade Iraq and steal their oil.

 

[sear]

"The reason I disagree is that in my opinion, the rights of any one single individual are supreme over the mere desires of the vast majority." R5 #388

As you know the term "tyranny of the majority" was used during the U.S. Founding, rationale for NOT Founding a democracy, because
in a simple democracy, the majority rules. Founders opposed to pure democracy called it "mob rule".

The democratic, Constitutional republic they Founded instead of a democracy undertakes to shield individual rights against even the tyranny of the majority. BUT:
one caveat:

"... the rights of any one single individual are supreme over the mere desires of the vast majority." R5 #388

Some might imagine that to mean a dictatorship. I doubt that's what you intended to defend.

Instead I deduce you meant that legitimate rights are not, ought not be subject to infringement or usurpation, whether by a majority, or a minority.

In a nearly ideal world that debate renders down to a "your right to flail your fist ends short of where my nose begins" debate, right?

"The Constitution is wrong when it tries to outlaw secession." R5 #388

If the ONLY criterion were preservation of individual rights I might find the assertion more plausible.
The right to not be kidnapped, or raped, or murdered are each fairly basic INDIVIDUAL rights. BUT !
Kidnap, rape, murder are NOT enumerated crimes within our Constitution.

IIRC the one crime enumerated in our Constitution is treason:

ARTICLE 3. SECTION 3.1
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War Against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. ... "

Nation States including Kim Jong Un's totalitarian Hell-hole North Korea, as well as our currently faltering republic are both systemically designed for self-preservation.

"The Constitution is wrong when it tries to outlaw secession." R5 #388

I appreciate this idealism.
But as a pragmatist I realize: "a house divided against itself cannot stand", & "Vires In Numeris" ("Strength in Numbers"), "e pluribus unum" "(out of many (states or colonies), one (nation)".
Einstein used the "thought experiment" to test viability.
What would our situation be today if the Confederate States of America had won "The War of Northern Aggression"?
If anything, I would expect further splintering, not reunification.

I thought Christianity included the concept that we are one human race.
Therefore wouldn't it seem Christianity would be one unifying religion? - nope -

List of 46 Christian Denominations​

Seems to me the historic trend over the millennia is further Christian splintering.

Politically the U.S. Founders attempted to dodge that risk with substantial autonomy among the States.
It's risky to make a static characterization of a dynamic.
It seems, by historic standards, the U.S. federal government imposes excessively on the States, in part by congressional design.

Simple example: each State must comply with congress' demands, or risk losing (for example) federal highway funds.
The additional complication with this, President Trump is now using this proactively before next month's election.
Reports indicate Trump threatens to withhold presidential support, and if President Trump retains his stranglehold on congress,
withhold much federal support, if election results in that State displease him.

That's very bad.
It appears for the remainder of the Trump administration, in the U.S. "free & fair elections" may be but a quaint memory.

 

[Rigby5]

As you know the term "tyranny of the majority" was used during the U.S. Founding, rationale for NOT Founding a democracy, because
in a simple democracy, the majority rules. Founders opposed to pure democracy called it "mob rule".

The democratic, Constitutional republic they Founded instead of a democracy undertakes to shield individual rights against even the tyranny of the majority. BUT:
one caveat:

Some might imagine that to mean a dictatorship. I doubt that's what you intended to defend.

Instead I deduce you meant that legitimate rights are not, ought not be subject to infringement or usurpation, whether by a majority, or a minority.

In a nearly ideal world that debate renders down to a "your right to flail your fist ends short of where my nose begins" debate, right?


If the ONLY criterion were preservation of individual rights I might find the assertion more plausible.
The right to not be kidnapped, or raped, or murdered are each fairly basic INDIVIDUAL rights. BUT !
Kidnap, rape, murder are NOT enumerated crimes within our Constitution.

IIRC the one crime enumerated in our Constitution is treason:


Nation States including Kim Jong Un's totalitarian Hell-hole North Korea, as well as our currently faltering republic are both systemically designed for self-preservation.


I appreciate this idealism.
But as a pragmatist I realize: "a house divided against itself cannot stand", & "Vires In Numeris" ("Strength in Numbers"), "e pluribus unum" "(out of many (states or colonies), one (nation)".
Einstein used the "thought experiment" to test viability.
What would our situation be today if the Confederate States of America had won "The War of Northern Aggression"?
If anything, I would expect further splintering, not reunification.

I thought Christianity included the concept that we are one human race.
Therefore wouldn't it seem Christianity would be one unifying religion? - nope -

List of 46 Christian Denominations​

Seems to me the historic trend over the millennia is further Christian splintering.

Politically the U.S. Founders attempted to dodge that risk with substantial autonomy among the States.
It's risky to make a static characterization of a dynamic.
It seems, by historic standards, the U.S. federal government imposes excessively on the States, in part by congressional design.

Simple example: each State must comply with congress' demands, or risk losing (for example) federal highway funds.
The additional complication with this, President Trump is now using this proactively before next month's election.
Reports indicate Trump threatens to withhold presidential support, and if President Trump retains his stranglehold on congress,
withhold much federal support, if election results in that State displease him.

That's very bad.
It appears for the remainder of the Trump administration, in the U.S. "free & fair elections" may be but a quaint memory.

It does not look like we are disagreeing, so I don't need to really say much more.
But there are just a few things I would add.

One is that many of the Founders did not want any rights enumerated in the Constitution.
The reason being is that rights actually are infinite, and they can never all be enumberated.
So adding a partial list just confuses people.
The real purpose of the Constitution really was mostly just to divide and restrict federal jurisdiction.

The second thing is that it is possible the US is just too big already.
The US should not be attacking places like Venezuela or Iran.
So it is likely the US has become a bully simply because no one else can stand up to the US any more.
And what the US is doing is not only wrong, but it shows how badly we need a world order that will prevent any one country from abusing others like we do.
The UN won't due because it has no Constitution, judiciary, etc., so no rule of law or blind justice.

 

[sear]

"... many of the Founders did not want any rights enumerated in the Constitution.
The reason being is that rights actually are infinite, and they can never all be enumberated." R5 #390

B.O.R. ARTICLE #9: Ratified December 15, 1791
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

I believe you nailed it here R5. I believe Amendment #9 is under-appreciated. BUT:
far worse, under-utilized.

Though the following aphorism may not be binding law, it has practical statutory momentum:
- If you do not use a right, you risk losing the right. -

You've already cited Drug War, my pet peeve.
I'm horrified our 9th wasn't used to strangle the Drug War baby in the crib. Instead
it's withering slowly, of old age.

I believe our failure to crush Drug War with the 9th has sown the seed of future self-inflicted adversities.

" it is possible the US is just too big already.
The US should not be attacking places like Venezuela or Iran.
So it is likely the US has become a bully simply because no one else can stand up to the US any more." R5 #390

That's a two-edged sword.
You are right, again.
The Founders knew it.

"In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty is in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed, and in the next place, oblige it to control itself." James Madison

As you know here to fore we managed to avoid U.S. international meddling by electing citizens principled enough not to bother.

"Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely," Lord Acton, writes John Emerich Edward Dalbert-Acton

"All governments suffer a recurring problem: Power attracts pathological personalities. It is not that power corrupts but that power is a magnet to the corruptible." Frank Herbert

" it is possible the US is just too big already.
The US should not be attacking places like Venezuela or Iran.
So it is likely the US has become a bully simply because no one else can stand up to the US any more." R5 #390

There are risks at either extreme. You've cited the "too big" problem.
The too small problem may be as bad or worse.

And if that grim perspective isn't dire enough, "Goldilocks" is a myth, a fairy tale.
Changing nation size doesn't eliminate problem, it substitutes a different problem.

 

[sear]

NATO warns Russia: 'We will break' forces, destroy 'anything and everything' if you attack​

NATO's top military commander, Gen. Alexus Grynkewich, vows to 'block, blunt and break' enemy forces amid rising tensions with Moscow.​

By Emma Bussey Fox News / Published October 12, 2026 8:22pm EDT

NATO warns Russia: 'We will break' forces, destroy 'anything and everything' if you attack

Gen. Alexus Grynkewich outlined NATO's strategy to "block, blunt and break" enemy forces at the Warsaw Security Forum amid rising Russia tensions.

www.foxnews.com

 

[Rigby5]

B.O.R. ARTICLE #9: Ratified December 15, 1791
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

I believe you nailed it here R5. I believe Amendment #9 is under-appreciated. BUT:
far worse, under-utilized.

Though the following aphorism may not be binding law, it has practical statutory momentum:
- If you do not use a right, you risk losing the right. -

You've already cited Drug War, my pet peeve.
I'm horrified our 9th wasn't used to strangle the Drug War baby in the crib. Instead
it's withering slowly, of old age.

I believe our failure to crush Drug War with the 9th has sown the seed of future self-inflicted adversities.


That's a two-edged sword.
You are right, again.
The Founders knew it.

As you know here to fore we managed to avoid U.S. international meddling by electing citizens principled enough not to bother.




There are risks at either extreme. You've cited the "too big" problem.
The too small problem may be as bad or worse.

And if that grim perspective isn't dire enough, "Goldilocks" is a myth, a fairy tale.
Changing nation size doesn't eliminate problem, it substitutes a different problem.

The Founders did a good job researching what law and government should be.
The same principles can and should be applied world wide.
Just as individuals and states can not be allowed to harm each other, neither can countries.
Just like the Constitution, blind justice, and judiciary prevent the strong from abusing the weak in the US, the same things are needed world wide for the same reasons.
The current UN is just a Security Counsel dictatorship.

 

[Rigby5]

NATO warns Russia: 'We will break' forces, destroy 'anything and everything' if you attack​

NATO's top military commander, Gen. Alexus Grynkewich, vows to 'block, blunt and break' enemy forces amid rising tensions with Moscow.​

By Emma Bussey Fox News / Published October 12, 2026 8:22pm EDT

NATO warns Russia: 'We will break' forces, destroy 'anything and everything' if you attack

Gen. Alexus Grynkewich outlined NATO's strategy to "block, blunt and break" enemy forces at the Warsaw Security Forum amid rising Russia tensions.

www.foxnews.com

While the US is a NATO member and we all like to be "patriotic", the reality is that NATO is not the "good guys" historically.
The reality is that the Romans turned Europe into evil colonial imperialists, like England, France and Spain taking over, colonizing, and establishing dictator puppets all over the world.
The US replaced Spain after the Spanish American war.
And it really was these greedy colonial imperialists who became the "Allies" and started WWI.
And the Treaty of Versailles was so evil and corrupt, that it really was the "Allies" who were at fault for WWII as well.
And that is who NATO actually is, these "Allies" who were evil world wide colonial imperialists, who keep starting wars.

If we look at what NATO has done, it is not pretty.
Like how we armed ISIS in Benghazi in order to oppose Qaddafi in Libya, then massacred Qaddafi's troops when we tried to retake Benghazi.
That caused the murder of Qaddafi and greatly harmed Libya.
We also caused a great deal of harm in the Balkans.
In Egypt, we likely were who backed General Sisi's takeover against President Morsi.
We also took out Assad most likely.

 

[sear]

"The same principles can and should be applied world wide." R5 #393

I emphatically agree. BUT !
This reflects a utilitarian premise we seem to share.

Apparently that's subjective, and an numerous elsewheres
there are those that think monarchies (for but one example) are better [for the monarch?]. [pause]