Oh I know you know what peace means, you probably thought that was funny.
Very funny, because it's so generic and infantile. Saying you're "for peace" is like saying you're "for good things". It's so basic that it may as well be meaningless. Different actors have different roads to peace. Peace for some can mean discomfort for others, etc etc. Here's a piece of knowledge for you that you can use later on in life:
everyone is for peace on
their own terms, so saying you're "for peace" is for either simpletons or politicians hoping to appeal to simpletons.
And it's no bother excusing Russia's actions in Ukraine, AT THIS POINT!
Oh, I'm sure you'll continue to excuse it at later points. I'm confident.
And the unclassified portion of the Church Committees report to congress is the relevant portion. Again, if you have knowledge of the classified portion that would diminish senator Church's declassified concerns/warning of potential for NSA abuses, please do share them.
You just keep displaying your atrocious cognitive abilities:
1- I didn't say anything about what the relevant portion was. That wasn't the debate then, it's not the debate now: the issue is that when you're told a "classified portion" of something exists, you take that to mean the person is unaware of the unclassified portion. But you can't even follow the train of thought
about an example of a time you couldn't follow the train of thought. looooool! This is like Inception! A cognitive failing within a cognitive failing!
2- How would you know what the relevant portions were anyway,
you've never read the classified parts? lol!
3- Why would someone share
classified information? But again,
why are you even talking about that, that has nothing to do with the discussion here.
The discussion is about your horrible critical thinking skills, which lead you to these absurdly hypocritical stances, wherein you defend Russia when they're violating international treaties (or close to it, if you want to argue that) but have no problem being critical of the US for violating international treaties (or close to it). When you're asked if you care about international law or not, your response is that you
care about if nations say they follow it or not, not it in particular.
You're beyond ridiculous, and I'm going to keep calling you on it until you actually refine your thinking to the point that you could write a C paper in your junior year of high school, because frankly you're not there yet.