why are there four asterisks when it’s a three letter word?
“intelligent creature like you to waste time arguing with an a$$, and on top of that, you came and bothered me with that question just to validate something you already knew was true!”
Join us at the Lincoln Memorial at 12:30 pm on Sunday, February 19th, on the anniversary of the Ukraine War and President's Day Weekend, to Rage Against the War Machine! Veterans, speakers, rock musicians, comedians, and more. After the rally, we'll march to the White House and deliver our demands to Warmonger-in-Chief Joe Biden.
Author, actress, former Senate aide, producer of The Kim Iversen Show.Speaker Profile
Join Us and Get Updates
Just want to get updates? Enter your email here.
Register
Register
If you would like to take part in the rally, please fill in your details below and you will be automatically registered. This will help us with planning and logistics.
First Name *Last Name *Email *Phone State * - Select State - Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Washington DC ARMED FORCES AFRICA \ CANADA \ EUROPE \ MIDDLE EAST ARMED FORCES AMERICA (EXCEPT CANADA) ARMED FORCES PACIFIC Zip *
Speaking @GLOBSEC conference in Bratislava, Georgian PM Irakli Garibashvili blamed the war in Ukraine on @NATO Enlargement. NATO enlargement and Ukraine’s determination to become member was one of the reasons for the war. “Therefore, we see the consequence,” he said. pic.twitter.com/XDaRNDTrdc
— Formula NEWS | English (@FormulaGe) May 30, 2023
Pope, in interview, skirts issue of return of occupied parts of Ukraine
Fri, May 26, 2023 at 8:46 AM EDT·2 min read
By Philip Pullella
VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - Pope Francis has said an eventual return by Russia of occupied territories in Ukraine is a "political problem" to be resolved by both sides, in his first public comment on Ukraine's request for him to back its plan demanding a total Russian withdrawal.
In an interview with Telemundo television, Francis did not take a position on the return of territories as a fundamental condition for peace, something on which Ukraine and many of its Western backers insist.
In the interview with the U.S.-based Spanish language network, Francis was asked twice if Russia should hand back the territories. He did not address that part of the question the first time but when pressed again, he said:
"It's a political issue. Peace will be achieved once they can talk to each other, face to face or through intermediaries. If they don't talk … it's a political issue".
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy met the pope at the Vatican on May 13 and asked him to back Kyiv's peace plan, which Zelenskiy has repeatedly said is not open to negotiation.
The plan calls for restoring Ukraine's territorial integrity, the withdrawal of Russian troops and cessation of hostilities, and the restoration of Ukraine's state borders.
At the start of the war, the pope tried to take a more balanced approach in hopes of being a mediator but later began forcefully condemning Russia's actions, comparing them to some of the worst crimes against Ukraine during the Soviet era.
In the interview, conducted in Rome on Thursday and broadcast on Friday, Francis said the Ukrainian side was "not getting their hopes" with the prospects of a mediation but added that the nations supporting Ukraine had formed a "very strong" bloc.
Francis has asked Cardinal Matteo Zuppi, head of the Italian bishops' conference, to carry out a peace mission to try to end the war.
Zuppi, 67, hails from the Sant' Egidio Community, a Rome-based peace and justice group which in 1992 brokered a deal that ended the civil war in Mozambique, which had killed about a million people and displaced about 4 million others.
A diplomatic source has said Zuppi would try to meet separately with Zelenskiy and Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Ukraine, card. Zuppi: peace even at the cost of a piece of sovereignty
The president of the CEI quotes Dossetti and the second part of article 11 of the Constitution
10/17/2022
"After 80 years we are still forced to see the dead. That's why even that article 11 of the Italian Constitution, to repudiate war - today in Ukraine, but also in the rest of the world, large and small, even in the same families - is so topical. And the second part of the article, on which Dossetti worked so hard, is even more important: it's better to lose a piece of sovereignty and resolve the conflicts. Instead of taking up arms, let's discuss. Someone really acts as arbiter then, for don't let brother kill brother." The president of the CEI card said so. Matteo Zuppi, speaking yesterday in Bonifati (Cosenza).
Cardinal Matteo Zuppi spoke yesterday in Bonifati (Cosenza) with journalists on the sidelines of the "Dossettian Jubilee", conceived by Don Guido Quintieri, parish priest of Bonifati, together with the Diocese of San Marco Argentano-Scalea, 25 years after the death of Giuseppe Dossetti, priest, jurist and politician, protagonist of the Constituent Assembly.
"That article - he added referring to article 11 of the Constitution - was truly the result of so much suffering, a repudiation that also meant giving meaning to the nonsense of the death of millions of people. Repudiation, but also, the loss of sovereignty for a sovereignty that helps resolve conflicts. We have an enormous need for it, and we understand it by witnessing this terrible conflict in Ukraine and in many other parts of the world".
Italy rejects war as an instrument of aggression against the freedom of other peoples and as a means for the settlement of international disputes. Italy agrees, on conditions of equality with other States, to the limitations of sovereignty that may be necessary to a world order ensuring peace and justice among the Nations. Italy promotes and encourages international organizations furthering such ends.
Does anyone think that it, or Cardinal Zuppi, is talking about territorial sovereignty?
Italy rejects war as an instrument of aggression against the freedom of other peoples and as a means for the settlement of international disputes. Italy agrees, on conditions of equality with other States, to the limitations of sovereignty that may be necessary to a world order ensuring peace and justice among the Nations. Italy promotes and encourages international organizations furthering such ends.
Does anyone think that it, or Cardinal Zuppi, is talking about territorial sovereignty?
If your viewpoint is that Ukraine must give up part of itself to Russia, and that Russia gets to take more territory, then you'll think that's what Cardinal Zuppi was saying.
If you think that every nation has to respect the sovereignty of other nations, then you don't interpret it the way Paul does.
Since the quote highlighted by Paul refers to the Italian constitution, these comments of Cardinal Zuppi on the Italian constitution are useful: "The text repudiates war, which for a while seemed to be a way forward, and indicates a way to limit parts of national sovereignty in favour of international organisations in order to achieve an order that promotes peace and justice".
Given that, I don't think you can interpret Cardinal Zuppi as saying that Ukraine must surrender sovereignty to Russia.
Pope, in interview, skirts issue of return of occupied parts of Ukraine
Fri, May 26, 2023 at 8:46 AM EDT·2 min read
By Philip Pullella
VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - Pope Francis has said an eventual return by Russia of occupied territories in Ukraine is a "political problem" to be resolved by both sides, in his first public comment on Ukraine's request for him to back its plan demanding a total Russian withdrawal.
In an interview with Telemundo television, Francis did not take a position on the return of territories as a fundamental condition for peace, something on which Ukraine and many of its Western backers insist.
In the interview with the U.S.-based Spanish language network, Francis was asked twice if Russia should hand back the territories. He did not address that part of the question the first time but when pressed again, he said:
"It's a political issue. Peace will be achieved once they can talk to each other, face to face or through intermediaries. If they don't talk … it's a political issue".
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy met the pope at the Vatican on May 13 and asked him to back Kyiv's peace plan, which Zelenskiy has repeatedly said is not open to negotiation.
The plan calls for restoring Ukraine's territorial integrity, the withdrawal of Russian troops and cessation of hostilities, and the restoration of Ukraine's state borders.
At the start of the war, the pope tried to take a more balanced approach in hopes of being a mediator but later began forcefully condemning Russia's actions, comparing them to some of the worst crimes against Ukraine during the Soviet era.
In the interview, conducted in Rome on Thursday and broadcast on Friday, Francis said the Ukrainian side was "not getting their hopes" with the prospects of a mediation but added that the nations supporting Ukraine had formed a "very strong" bloc.
Francis has asked Cardinal Matteo Zuppi, head of the Italian bishops' conference, to carry out a peace mission to try to end the war.
Zuppi, 67, hails from the Sant' Egidio Community, a Rome-based peace and justice group which in 1992 brokered a deal that ended the civil war in Mozambique, which had killed about a million people and displaced about 4 million others.
A diplomatic source has said Zuppi would try to meet separately with Zelenskiy and Russian President Vladimir Putin.
The quote from the article that Paul didn't highlight: "At the start of the war, the pope tried to take a more balanced approach in hopes of being a mediator but later began forcefully condemning Russia's actions, comparing them to some of the worst crimes against Ukraine during the Soviet era."
The problem with idea of Ukraine joining NATO meant that the door was forever closed on the coercive or outright violent reincorporation of Ukraine into the Russian Federation. It's really that simple. You don't see Russia freaking out about the strategically significant addition of Finland and, eventually, Sweden to NATO.
Italy rejects war as an instrument of aggression against the freedom of other peoples and as a means for the settlement of international disputes. Italy agrees, on conditions of equality with other States, to the limitations of sovereignty that may be necessary to a world order ensuring peace and justice among the Nations. Italy promotes and encourages international organizations furthering such ends.
Does anyone think that it, or Cardinal Zuppi, is talking about territorial sovereignty?
It looks like Paul made the same claim a couple of times on the Twitter. Since you're not blocked you could point that out to him there. He blocked me, for correcting him too often.
It looks like Paul made the same claim a couple of times on the Twitter. Since you're not blocked you could point that out to him there. He blocked me, for correcting him too often.
Not worth the effort. Twitter these days is increasingly simply a safe place for those who wish to bray that the grass is blue.
If you think that every nation has to respect the sovereignty of other nations, then you don't interpret it the way Paul does.
I can only guess at how Paul interprets it.
I think the sovereignty refers to unilateral action in international affairs — for example, “aggression against the freedom of other peoples” — but I could be wrong.
If you think that every nation has to respect the sovereignty of other nations, then you don't interpret it the way Paul does.
I can only guess at how Paul interprets it.
I think the sovereignty refers to unilateral action in international affairs — for example, “aggression against the freedom of other peoples” — but I could be wrong.
You know, just because you pay more attention to precise wording than most of us, it doesn't mean that Paul is wrong.
You know, just because you pay more attention to precise wording than most of us, it doesn't mean that Paul is wrong.
I know. In this case, though, it’s not even about precise wording. (I can also only guess at whether Paul read Article 11 before posting.) The rejection of aggression, the conditions of equality among states and the promotion of international organizations are all thematically in line with limitations on unilateral action, which is its own form of national sovereignty. A reading of limitations on territorial sovereignty makes no sense in the context.
The constant affirmation from the Pope is really odd. Paul has hardly mentioned the pope's input at all in the years prior to 2022. A few mentions in regards to Syria in 2013. Perhaps Paul can list other peace organization spouting his stance?
Or does he hold up the Pope's stance above all others?
The odds are against Ukraine successfully taking back all of its territory, though it is not impossible. Regardless of how much territory Ukraine does or does not reclaim, though, it's clear that Russia will remain a threat to Ukraine's territorial integrity as long as Putin remains in power, and most likely after Putin as well.
This means that for any eventual settlement to truly be a settlement, and not just an intermission before renewed Russian hostilities, Russia must believe that it would be unsuccessful in a fresh attempt to seize Ukrainian territory. That means either a Ukrainian military strong enough to deter future Russian aggression, or a believable commitment by other countries to militarily deter Russian aggression. (Personally, I find the idea of other countries making such commitments quite risky, hence I favor the current approach of supplying Ukraine with money, training, and equipment to build and maintain its own military, and I do not see any realistic path to NATO integration in Ukraine's foreseeable future.)
Paul does not support this, hence all his talk about any settlement is unserious at best, or outright support for Russian victory over Ukraine at worst.
The constant affirmation from the Pope is really odd. Paul has hardly mentioned the pope's input at all in the years prior to 2022. A few mentions in regards to Syria in 2013. Perhaps Paul can list other peace organization spouting his stance?
Or does he hold up the Pope's stance above all others?
Paul mentions the Pope when he can misrepresent the actual meaning. I think the quote I pointed out (which Paul ignored) explains what the Pope's meaning has been all along.
Pope Francis once again showing wisdom on the war in Ukraine and in his appointment of Cardinal Zuppi as his peace envoy.
In two parts (my bold):
The quote from the article that Paul didn't highlight: "At the start of the war, the pope tried to take a more balanced approach in hopes of being a mediator but later began forcefully condemning Russia's actions, comparing them to some of the worst crimes against Ukraine during the Soviet era."
The constant affirmation from the Pope is really odd. Paul has hardly mentioned the pope's input at all in the years prior to 2022. A few mentions in regards to Syria in 2013. Perhaps Paul can list other peace organization spouting his stance?
Or does he hold up the Pope's stance above all others?
Paul mentions the Pope when he can misrepresent the actual meaning. I think the quote I pointed out (which Paul ignored) explains what the Pope's meaning has been all along.
It's an example of the kind of inch-deep understanding common among the Extremely Online. Digital magpies.
It looks like Paul made the same claim a couple of times on the Twitter. Since you're not blocked you could point that out to him there. He blocked me, for correcting him too often.
Not worth the effort. Twitter these days is increasingly simply a safe place for those who wish to bray that the grass is blue.
The constant affirmation from the Pope is really odd. Paul has hardly mentioned the pope's input at all in the years prior to 2022. A few mentions in regards to Syria in 2013. Perhaps Paul can list other peace organization spouting his stance?
Or does he hold up the Pope's stance above all others?
Paul mentions the Pope when he can misrepresent the actual meaning. I think the quote I pointed out (which Paul ignored) explains what the Pope's meaning has been all along.
It's an example of the kind of inch-deep understanding common among the Extremely Online. Digital magpies.
I highlighted the portion of the quote that was new in the Pope's interview (which also addressed the point I was making). What @nohero says I "ignored" -- although I quoted it -- was a reference to prior statements by the Pope. Again -- I quoted that reference.
The Pope has appointed an envoy to promote a peaceful resolution of the war in Ukraine.
That's not something that sycophants of the war-machine-media like, as evidenced by the attempts to downplay its importance here.
The constant affirmation from the Pope is really odd. Paul has hardly mentioned the pope's input at all in the years prior to 2022. A few mentions in regards to Syria in 2013. Perhaps Paul can list other peace organization spouting his stance?
Or does he hold up the Pope's stance above all others?
The Pope is one of the world's greatest advocates for non-violence and peace, social justice and saving the planet.
Oh, I wish the pope luck in his attempts to bring the sides to an agreement. Unless and until Russia believes it can't make any further progress, and fears losing too much of what it's gained, it's not going to be open to any serious negotiations though. And until Russia is open to serious negotiations, none can be had. And if the goal is to actually reach a settlement and not merely a pause while Russia prepares for a new assault, Ukraine will need a strong military, which likely means continued substantial aid from its allies.
The Pope is one of the world's greatest advocates for non-violence and peace, social justice and saving the planet.
which is meaningless when you have a guy trying to eliminate the worst nazi scourge since WWII. Remind us who the nazi leader is that vlad is keen to eliminate.
Italy rejects war as an instrument of aggression against the freedom of other peoples and as a means for the settlement of international disputes. Italy agrees, on conditions of equality with other States, to the limitations of sovereignty that may be necessary to a world order ensuring peace and justice among the Nations. Italy promotes and encourages international organizations furthering such ends.
Does anyone think that it, or Cardinal Zuppi, is talking about territorial sovereignty?
Zuppi is undoubtedly knowledgeable about the Minsk agreement's central provision for a partially autonomous Donbas, which would have involved Ukraine giving a "a piece of its sovereignty" to the separatist regions. Ukraine agreed to limit its sovereignty when it signed the agreement.
As I've posted, that concession to sovereignty along with ruling out Ukraine's membership in NATO would have averted the Russian invasion and stopped the invasion in March-April 2022 when a tentative agreement was reached between Russia and Ukraine along those lines, only to be sabotaged by the US and UK. Cits are all here:
Ukraine had negotiated a tentative agreement with Russia to end the conflict in March-April 2022, but Zelensky ended the talks when Boris Johnson told him the West would not support such an agreement (which involved no NATO membership and autonomy for Donbas).
This is the background on negotiations that Zuppi faces and the tension between autonomy and sovereignty is central, with the additional factors of independence and annexation resulting from the decision of Ukraine to go along with the US and UK in March-April 2022.
Here's a good article on why Pope Francis likely appointed Zuppi to represent him as peace envoy:
You know, just because you pay more attention to precise wording than most of us, it doesn't mean that Paul is wrong.
I know. In this case, though, it’s not even about precise wording. (I can also only guess at whether Paul read Article 11 before posting.) The rejection of aggression, the conditions of equality among states and the promotion of international organizations are all thematically in line with limitations on unilateral action, which is its own form of national sovereignty. A reading of limitations on territorial sovereignty makes no sense in the context.
We can also look at the precise wording of Zuppi's statement on losing "a piece of sovereignty" in the context of the causes and possible solutions of the Ukraine war (see last post) to interpret what he meant.
We can also look at the precise wording of Zuppi's statement on losing "a piece of sovereignty" in the context of the causes and possible solutions of the Ukraine war (see last post) to interpret what he meant.
One of my guesses was that you’d regard with precision the computer-generated translation of “pezzo” as “piece,” zeroing in on it as a piece of land, and hang your reply on that single word.
Italian-English online dictionaries, unsurprisingly, account for other meanings of “pezzo,” as well. They include “bit” (lose a bit of sovereignty) or “portion” (lose a portion of sovereignty) or even “example” (lose an example of sovereignty). Which, again, all make more sense in the context of Article 11 than a piece of territory.
Zuppi is undoubtedly knowledgeable about the Minsk agreement's central provision for a partially autonomous Donbas, which would have involved Ukraine giving a "a piece of its sovereignty" to the separatist regions. Ukraine agreed to limit its sovereignty when it signed the agreement.
And you are undoubtedly knowledgeable about the fact that the Minsk agreement 1) only came about because of a conflict Russia instigated and 2) required a cease-fire, which Russia and its allies within Ukraine refused to respect.
As I've posted, that concession to sovereignty along with ruling out Ukraine's membership in NATO would have averted the Russian invasion and stopped the invasion in March-April 2022 when a tentative agreement was reached between Russia and Ukraine along those lines, only to be sabotaged by the US and UK. Cits are all here:
Indeed, you have posted this numerous times. Repeatedly posting an unconvincing argument does not make it stronger. Rather than repeat all the rebuttals here, let's just do the nut graf version of it -- post the quotes from Putin at that time indicating he was actually open to an agreement.
I highlighted the portion of the quote that was new in the Pope's interview (which also addressed the point I was making). What @nohero says I "ignored" -- although I quoted it -- was a reference to prior statements by the Pope. Again -- I quoted that reference.
The Pope has appointed an envoy to promote a peaceful resolution of the war in Ukraine.
That's not something that sycophants of the war-machine-media like, as evidenced by the attempts to downplay its importance here.
I think Paul has outdone himself with this dishonest insult. None of the responses to his latest disinformation and misinterpretation about Cardinal Zuppi have been "attempts to downplay its [the peace effort] importance here." And if he's looking for a "sycophant of the war-machine-media", he can look in the mirror.
Jimmy Dore" srcset="">
Medea Benjamin" srcset="">
Scott Horton" srcset="">
Garland Nixon" srcset="">
David Swanson" srcset="">
Daniel McAdams" srcset="">
Max Blumenthal" srcset="">
Anya Parampil" srcset="">
Supreme" srcset="">
Tara Reade" srcset="">
In this case, though, it’s not even about precise wording. (I can also only guess at whether Paul read Article 11 before posting.) The rejection of aggression, the conditions of equality among states and the promotion of international organizations are all thematically in line with limitations on unilateral action, which is its own form of national sovereignty. A reading of limitations on territorial sovereignty makes no sense in the context.
Does anyone have any idea what Paul is talking about?