To even joke about it shows a flippant disregard for the rule of law. Not only do you think there is no rule of law, but you don't even care if there is -- you're simply accepting it as fait accompli.
I don't think that was flippant disregard, but growing disgust for the downward spiral into 3rd world style gov't, because there is no rule of law, only rule of some laws as they fit the policy of the person in office at a given time.
I've never met a person who denies climate change. I think most people learn in grade school that Earth's climate has changed since the beginning when it was a molten, soupy mess. The inaccurate "climate change deniers" label helps the AGW "industry" (another cheap label, but untrue?) keep ongoing debate to a low, inconsequential level.
When it comes to climate science I am an ignorant layman so my default position on AGW would be agnostic. I already know climate change is a feature of the planet, so I'm bored to tears reading articles about pro-AGW zealots proposing fines, imprisonment, death, concentration camps, etc for "deniers" and downright put-off by quotes from hypocrite Al Gore or the dubious Michael Mann.
Then there's the "it's already decided, so don't even ask" posture that useless zealots adopt. It is NOT decided because you are assuming the wrong debate - climate change predates man and is not in question. What amount of current climate change is anthropogenic and how do you arrive at such numbers? What are effective responses to this, if it is worthy of response, and why do you think it will work? What are the costs - are any economies going to come crashing down? Will the price of corn become such that 3rd world children go hungry while thier Western counterparts enjoy a smug ride in ethanol powered SUVs? What impact have AGW measures had so far, if at all measurable? Answers to these questions may be available, but the public won't know because their bandwidth is overwhelmed by the school-yard nonsense of name-calling, lawsuits, and Jessica Alba rockin' a bikini for the cause.
Kyoto turned out to be a blunt political instrument that hardly anyone intended to adopt anyway. Other suggestions have a passing similarity to wealth redistribution schemes. AGW "solutions" should be reviewed for such features. AGW deserves rigorous criticism if only due to the tremendous amount of resources already comandeered to study and address it, and the social engineering measures proponents appear to be licking their chops over. Get rid of school-yard posturing and name-calling, Michael Mann, and regarding people who would challenge you as imbeciles. Then maybe your efforts will get more traction.
They never promised that. They merely promised that they wouldn't break into the house, not that nobody would.
I also haven't made up my mind one way or the other about any level of US/UK involvement on behalf of Ukraine. Reality is they had about 36 hours after Ukrainians booted Moscow's puppet to make Crimea too bothersome for Putin to just walk in, but none of those gov'ts had any political resources for playing Putin's brand of game.
But I think you're wrong about no obligations to enforce Ukraine's territorial integrity. The US and UK obviously were no threat to Ukraine at that time - the only reason they were signatories was to provide support vs Russia. None of us can know the particulars of the talks leading up to the agreement. And sure, people can argue about the fine print or admonish Ukraine for not hiring better lawyers before letting US/UK/Russia talk them into surrendering their amazing nuclear arsenal.
I think we all can reasonably understand that Ukraine was led to believe they'd get some heavy lifting on their behalf in exchange for giving up a nuclear capability greater than all other nations except US and Russia. And so we are now at this entirely predictable crossroads, and the US and UK get to either man up (in some fashion) or weasel out and take their deserved lumps for selling their crippled buddy down the river.