Reality Check. . . . . Why agreements and pacts mean so little.

The Kellogg–Briand Pact (or Pact of Paris, officially General Treaty for Renunciation of War as an Instrument of National Policy[1]) is a 1928 international agreement in which signatory states promised not to use war to resolve "disputes or conflicts of whatever nature or of whatever origin they may be, which may arise among them".[2] Parties failing to abide by this promise "should be denied of the benefits furnished by this treaty". It was signed by Germany, France, and the United States on 27 August 1928, and by most other nations soon after. Sponsored by France and the U.S., the Pact renounces the use of war and calls for the peaceful settlement of disputes. Similar provisions were incorporated into the Charter of the United Nations and other treaties and it became a stepping-stone to a more activist American policy.[3] It is named after its authors, United States Secretary of State Frank B. Kellogg and French foreign minister Aristide Briand.

en.wikipedia.org...


Was looking at other sites and this site brought it up. . .

patriotretort.com...


Just a Saturday morning reality check. Nothing is ever static, the world, leaders, attitudes are dynamic and are always changing.

“The Only Thing That Is Constant Is Change"
-Heraclitus

People, we really need to calm down. Just my opinion, for what it's worth.

a reply to: DBCowboy

I for one respect your opinion. However I don't want to calm down either.

I'm in the process of taking off my shirt, putting on some sun screen and getting all loosened up to run around in the yard waving my arms.

A man's gotta do what a mans gotta do...

This site ebbs and flows with the MSM narrative nowadays. We used to reject it but now we embrace it whether we buy into it or not.

Anytime one of the MSM outlets says or does ANYTHING it ends up on this site within minutes. Looks like they've got ATS in their clutches and it doesn't look like they'll be letting go anytime soon.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

what do you expect, everybody gets blown off by the sceptics unless it's verified by a mainstream source...

a reply to: ShadowChatter

I expect people to deny ignorance but the MSM is doing their damnedest to not let that happen.

Funny thing is the ones who post the most about the media and link to their site (giving them ad-revenue) are the ones who complain about them and claim they don't trust them.

It's very ironic to see yet at the same time very sad for this once great site. It's the same two political hack camps starring and flagging anything and everything that rubs their biases the right way. The front page is usually just a big circle jerk of the same posters making threads and flagging them to the top.

Lots of "Pacts", "Accords" and "Treaties" have been "signed" in Paris.

Which ones have been "successful" ?

"Historically" speaking of course.



Excellent Topic and Great Thread !!!

S&F

a reply to: DBCowboy

Your general thread struck a nerve in me. One of the best examples is the 1967 Treaty on Outer Space that most of the world's nations signed. One of its solid conditions is that outer space is NOT to become militarized.

What a farce! About everything that goes into space has some military value and some of that stuff is absolutely top secret military hardware.

The above are merely my words so I'll add some substance. I'm fond of referring to a 1989 book published by the US Air Force as a misleading primer for the member of Congress so they can grasp the basics of our ventures into space.

On page one, as an intro teaser, there is this quote:
"Who rules circumterrestrial space commands Planet Earth;
Who rules the Moon commands circumterrestrial space;
Who rules L4 and L5 commands the Earth-Moon System.
(Halford J. Mackinder's Heartland Theory Applied to Space.)"

The book, setting the stage for Reagan's much maligned "Star Wars" program, then describes how the US Space Force is to be created and staffed with every aspects of current military operations, including the Marines. It gives a blueprint for how the US is to attain and maintain dominance in the sphere of space designated.

As an American, my view is that we are not out to subjugate the world as would some regimes. Our purpose is to dominate it with superior technology to protect ourselves and the balance of the decent world, to not go all Nazi-like and march across nations or bomb them from space...unless....

So while I may be critical of the disregard for the written paper, I understand that the real world works entirely different.

a reply to: Aliensun

What politicians do and what they say are entirely different.

Pacts, treaties are often just window dressings for the masses.

a reply to: DBCowboy


It's not important until you back out of one with all the fanfare and paranoid you can muster. Then it becomes yuge important.

It sends a very bad message that Trump clearly meant to send to the world. Merkel and Macron lead the free world now.

originally posted by: Abysha
a reply to: DBCowboy

Merkel and Macron lead the free world now.

How?

In what way do they lead?

a reply to: Abysha

Interesting. So leaving the Paris accord is tantamount to the breaking of the Treaty of Versailles, basically?

Except, Trump is going to cause the Solomon Islands to sink, or something....


Do people even know why we left the "agreement" that was never ratified by our government and only made by our President, hence not a legitimate Treaty? Or is this simply Trump-hate?


If we give our industry (jobs) and money (taxes) to China and India, while at the same time hamstringing ourselves, what is accomplished?

Does pollution in India and China from our translated heavy industries (over the next 20 years) create less toxic pollution?

Why did the recipients of government subsidies (that are in the billions) quit their posts when we left the agreement? Do they no longer care about the environment? Would it not have been better to remain at the posts to direct national policy? Or was the post all about directing funds into the Green Fund, hence into their subsidies. It's loss is their loss.


Why is all of Europe pledging less than the US? Should we not all be "equal partners" in saving the planet? Is Europe a country now? Why do some countries receive money and other pay money? I understand the concept of "modernizing". Why then are we being asked to "modernize" the two biggest beneficiaries of America's industrial/manufacturing jobs loses? If they can do the jobs Americans can do they should be modern enough already. Either that, or American tax money is being squandered on subsidizing foreign job growth and wealth distribution.


Macron's attempt to draw America's scientists and engineers should have been taken as incitement by the President (if not an act of aggression/war).

Yes not Paris.....you posted change is normal.....I like that.....grounds me a little

Change comin round real soon for us women and men, huh.