Bring back the Cold War?.....Will GOP squash arms treaty?

[rightwinger]

Dead on delivery - The Week

The Republicans will once again put Obama hatred and desire to prevent any accomplishments from doing what is best for the American people

Despite the near-universal support for the treaty from the military, most arms control experts, and most pre-George W. Bush former national security officials, it has become an article of faith in Republican ranks that the treaty weakens America’s nuclear deterrent and limits missile defense in Europe. Neither of these claims is remotely true, but that has not stopped leading figures in the conservative movement from making the acceptance of these claims into the first post-election litmus test.

The mood of the GOP at the moment is such that any bipartisan agreement, no matter how sensible, has zero chance of picking up more than a handful of votes. After this year’s primary season that saw the defeats of two sitting Senators, every incumbent Republican will be wary of appearing too accommodating with the administration, and newly-elected members will be eager to establish themselves as harsh critics of administration decisions.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

When Obama and the Dems ran everything, there were no wars, we had no enemies, everyone loved us!

 

[washamericom]

Dead on delivery - The Week

The Republicans will once again put Obama hatred and desire to prevent any accomplishments from doing what is best for the American people

Despite the near-universal support for the treaty from the military, most arms control experts, and most pre-George W. Bush former national security officials, it has become an article of faith in Republican ranks that the treaty weakens America’s nuclear deterrent and limits missile defense in Europe. Neither of these claims is remotely true, but that has not stopped leading figures in the conservative movement from making the acceptance of these claims into the first post-election litmus test.

The mood of the GOP at the moment is such that any bipartisan agreement, no matter how sensible, has zero chance of picking up more than a handful of votes. After this year’s primary season that saw the defeats of two sitting Senators, every incumbent Republican will be wary of appearing too accommodating with the administration, and newly-elected members will be eager to establish themselves as harsh critics of administration decisions.

i've totally thought that we were slipping back to cold war. look at chavez and ahmadinajad circling around together. putin in russia, iran giving karzai money (he's a double dealing sac of shit), china, north korea, what's different except the control of the nukes? it's not a great situation

 

[The Rabbi]

Actually it is Obama who is reviving the Cold War with this stupid pointless treaty. Yes, let the GOP vote the fucker down. Let it declare Dead On Arrival any treaty that limits the U.S.

 

[Yurt]

1. how does this treaty benefit the us?

2. how does not passing it bring back the cold war? the cold war ended without the treaty....seems dumb to claim that without a treaty now....the cold war will come back....

 

[loosecannon]

1. how does this treaty benefit the us?

2. how does not passing it bring back the cold war? the cold war ended without the treaty....seems dumb to claim that without a treaty now....the cold war will come back....

It may seem dumb but a new cold war is looming.

 

[loosecannon]

Actually it is Obama who is reviving the Cold War with this stupid pointless treaty. Yes, let the GOP vote the fucker down. Let it declare Dead On Arrival any treaty that limits the U.S.

fortunately you are always wrong. And Reagan would kick your ass if he was still alive.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

1. how does this treaty benefit the us?

2. how does not passing it bring back the cold war? the cold war ended without the treaty....seems dumb to claim that without a treaty now....the cold war will come back....

It may seem dumb but a new cold war is looming.

We should weaken ourselves because our enemies may not like us if we do not? Pretty stupid plan in my opinion.

 

[loosecannon]

1. how does this treaty benefit the us?

2. how does not passing it bring back the cold war? the cold war ended without the treaty....seems dumb to claim that without a treaty now....the cold war will come back....

It may seem dumb but a new cold war is looming.

We should weaken ourselves because our enemies may not like us if we do not? Pretty stupid plan in my opinion.

You fucking hillbilly!

START was a Bush 41 accomplishment! Even Reagan was fully onboard, you dumbshit!

START I - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

START (for Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) was a bilateral treaty between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) on the Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms. The treaty was signed on 31 July 1991 and entered into force on 5 December 1994 .[1] The treaty was signed by the United States and the USSR, that barred its signatories from deploying more than 6,000 nuclear warheads atop a total of 1,600 ICBMs, submarine-launched ballistic missiles, and bombers. START negotiated the largest and most complex arms control treaty in history, and its final implementation in late 2001 resulted in the removal of about 80 percent of all strategic nuclear weapons then in existence. Proposed by United States President Ronald Reagan, it was renamed START I after negotiations began on the second START treaty, which became START II.

The START I treaty expired 5 December 2009. On 8 April 2010, the new START treaty was signed in Prague by U.S. President Obama and Russian President Medvedev. It will enter into force after its ratification through the parliaments of both countries.

 

[GWV5903]

Dead on delivery - The Week

The Republicans will once again put Obama hatred and desire to prevent any accomplishments from doing what is best for the American people
Despite the near-universal support for the treaty from the military, most arms control experts, and most pre-George W. Bush former national security officials, it has become an article of faith in Republican ranks that the treaty weakens America’s nuclear deterrent and limits missile defense in Europe. Neither of these claims is remotely true, but that has not stopped leading figures in the conservative movement from making the acceptance of these claims into the first post-election litmus test.

The mood of the GOP at the moment is such that any bipartisan agreement, no matter how sensible, has zero chance of picking up more than a handful of votes. After this year’s primary season that saw the defeats of two sitting Senators, every incumbent Republican will be wary of appearing too accommodating with the administration, and newly-elected members will be eager to establish themselves as harsh critics of administration decisions.

RW this treaty will guarantee that Ahmadinejad, Kim Jong-il, Putin, etc... will become great world citizens, stop all nuclear armament, agree to defeat all Islamic Extremism, stabilize Afghanistan / Pakistan / India and end the senseless extermination of innocent people around the world.....

When this can be accomplished, maybe, and I mean maybe, the Conservative Movement will consider thinking about it, until then, hell will have to freeze over first, just saying.....

 

[shintao]

When Obama and the Dems ran everything, there were no wars, we had no enemies, everyone loved us!

Then why did you fuck it up bozo?? Oh, Bush lost the war, and bomb-bomb Iran lost the presidency.

 

[jimbetty123]

The day before a meeting and dinner with Mr. Putin, Mr. Bush warned him once again about retreating on democracy, saying that "all free and successful countries have some common characteristics - freedom of worship, freedom of the press, economic liberty, the rule of law and the limitation of power through checks and balances."
Freedom of worship, with your political party using religion to take over the government and batter political opponents as being un-American and unpatriotic?

Freedom of the press, with your administration intimidating reporters, stonewalling the media through an imperial presidency bent on an extreme version of executive privilege, and using taxpayer paid propaganda and gay male escorts to influence media coverage?

Economic liberty, when the gap between rich and poor has grown with intent under your policies to the largest levels in decades and where the middle and lower classes are subsidizing the wealthy?

The rule of law, which through a total lack of accountability from the top is something that seemingly doesn�t apply to your administration at home or abroad?

The limitation of power through checks and balances, something that you are prepared to eviscerate right now in the Senate, and by threatening the judicial branch into obedience to your policies?

Mr. Bush also had stern words for his hosts, the Latvians, telling them they had to respect the rights of the country's ethnic Russian minority, which has objected bitterly to laws requiring the use of the Latvian language in most activities and discrimination in general.
"The promise of democracy is fulfilled by minority rights, and equal justice under the rule of law, and an inclusive society in which every person belongs," he said.

 

[rightwinger]

Like the President said..

“It would be fine with me if we eliminated all nuclear weapons,”

We need to reduce the number of warheads held by everyone. The US holding 1500 warheads is more than sufficient to counter any threat. In times of budget crisis, it just makes sense to cut down the number of warheads and platforms we sustain

 

[The Rabbi]

Like the President said..

“It would be fine with me if we eliminated all nuclear weapons,”

We need to reduce the number of warheads held by everyone. The US holding 1500 warheads is more than sufficient to counter any threat. In times of budget crisis, it just makes sense to cut down the number of warheads and platforms we sustain

And as Putin, Ahmadinnerjacket, and Kim Jong Il said, "It would be fine with us if the U.S. eliminated all its nuclear weapons."
Our nuclear arsenal is aging and ill maintained. Shortly it will not have much deterrent capability at all. In military power, it is either growing or shrinking. There is no status quo.

 

[rightwinger]

Like the President said..

“It would be fine with me if we eliminated all nuclear weapons,”

We need to reduce the number of warheads held by everyone. The US holding 1500 warheads is more than sufficient to counter any threat. In times of budget crisis, it just makes sense to cut down the number of warheads and platforms we sustain

And as Putin, Ahmadinnerjacket, and Kim Jong Il said, "It would be fine with us if the U.S. eliminated all its nuclear weapons."
Our nuclear arsenal is aging and ill maintained. Shortly it will not have much deterrent capability at all. In military power, it is either growing or shrinking. There is no status quo.

With nuclear weapons, it is not the quantities as much as the capability to deliver them to intended targets with a high probability and precision.

Puppet dictators like Ahmadinijad and Kim may eventually gain a nuclear weapon but they lack the capability to reliably deliver them. 1500 US weapons available to respond to a single warhead is more than enough firepower.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Dead on delivery - The Week

The Republicans will once again put Obama hatred and desire to prevent any accomplishments from doing what is best for the American people

Despite the near-universal support for the treaty from the military, most arms control experts, and most pre-George W. Bush former national security officials, it has become an article of faith in Republican ranks that the treaty weakens America’s nuclear deterrent and limits missile defense in Europe. Neither of these claims is remotely true, but that has not stopped leading figures in the conservative movement from making the acceptance of these claims into the first post-election litmus test.

The mood of the GOP at the moment is such that any bipartisan agreement, no matter how sensible, has zero chance of picking up more than a handful of votes. After this year’s primary season that saw the defeats of two sitting Senators, every incumbent Republican will be wary of appearing too accommodating with the administration, and newly-elected members will be eager to establish themselves as harsh critics of administration decisions.

Lets see;

Iran is working on Nukes, even obama seems to think so
N Korea has nukes, and doesn't give a damn about anyone that is not NK and openly hates SK, Japan and the USA.
Pakistan is one payday short from handing nukes to terrorist.
China is no worry.
USSR is still a bunch of commies that hate us. The name change from communist to Democratic socialist was putting a paper bag over the same book.

So who, in thier right mind, would want to weaken our capability? Clinton did that and we saw what happened.

 

[Two Thumbs]

When Obama and the Dems ran everything, there were no wars, we had no enemies, everyone loved us!

Then why did you fuck it up bozo?? Oh, Bush lost the war, and bomb-bomb Iran lost the presidency.

What war did we loose under Bush? Who declared a victory?

The last war we lost was in Somalia, under Clinton.

 

[rightwinger]

Dead on delivery - The Week

The Republicans will once again put Obama hatred and desire to prevent any accomplishments from doing what is best for the American people

Despite the near-universal support for the treaty from the military, most arms control experts, and most pre-George W. Bush former national security officials, it has become an article of faith in Republican ranks that the treaty weakens America’s nuclear deterrent and limits missile defense in Europe. Neither of these claims is remotely true, but that has not stopped leading figures in the conservative movement from making the acceptance of these claims into the first post-election litmus test.

The mood of the GOP at the moment is such that any bipartisan agreement, no matter how sensible, has zero chance of picking up more than a handful of votes. After this year’s primary season that saw the defeats of two sitting Senators, every incumbent Republican will be wary of appearing too accommodating with the administration, and newly-elected members will be eager to establish themselves as harsh critics of administration decisions.

Lets see;

Iran is working on Nukes, even obama seems to think so
N Korea has nukes, and doesn't give a damn about anyone that is not NK and openly hates SK, Japan and the USA.
Pakistan is one payday short from handing nukes to terrorist.
China is no worry.
USSR is still a bunch of commies that hate us. The name change from communist to Democratic socialist was putting a paper bag over the same book.

So who, in thier right mind, would want to weaken our capability? Clinton did that and we saw what happened.

With 1500 nukes, we have more than enough capability to anihilate anyone foolish enough to launch ONE.

The Cold War is over. The need for MAD levels like we maintained against the Soviets makes no sense.
Iran, N Korea, Pakistan are small time players when compared to the former Soviet Union. If they are dumb enough to launch an attack with the US holding 2500 warheads, they would be dumb enough to launch an attack with 25,000 warheads

 

[Two Thumbs]

Like the President said..

“It would be fine with me if we eliminated all nuclear weapons,”

We need to reduce the number of warheads held by everyone. The US holding 1500 warheads is more than sufficient to counter any threat. In times of budget crisis, it just makes sense to cut down the number of warheads and platforms we sustain

And as Putin, Ahmadinnerjacket, and Kim Jong Il said, "It would be fine with us if the U.S. eliminated all its nuclear weapons."
Our nuclear arsenal is aging and ill maintained. Shortly it will not have much deterrent capability at all. In military power, it is either growing or shrinking. There is no status quo.

With nuclear weapons, it is not the quantities as much as the capability to deliver them to intended targets with a high probability and precision.

Puppet dictators like Ahmadinijad and Kim may eventually gain a nuclear weapon NK has nukes, and Iran has a missle that can reach Israel.but they lack the capability to reliably deliver them. 1500 US weapons available to respond to a single warhead is more than enough firepower.

Just b/c they can't reach us does not mean we should dissarm. Iran and NK have no reason to follow the treaty. We are infedels to Iran, so they are free to lie to us. NK is a total dictatorship, thier people will never know what's going on or be help accountable.

 

[rightwinger]

And as Putin, Ahmadinnerjacket, and Kim Jong Il said, "It would be fine with us if the U.S. eliminated all its nuclear weapons."
Our nuclear arsenal is aging and ill maintained. Shortly it will not have much deterrent capability at all. In military power, it is either growing or shrinking. There is no status quo.

With nuclear weapons, it is not the quantities as much as the capability to deliver them to intended targets with a high probability and precision.

Puppet dictators like Ahmadinijad and Kim may eventually gain a nuclear weapon NK has nukes, and Iran has a missle that can reach Israel.but they lack the capability to reliably deliver them. 1500 US weapons available to respond to a single warhead is more than enough firepower.

Just b/c they can't reach us does not mean we should dissarm. Iran and NK have no reason to follow the treaty. We are infedels to Iran, so they are free to lie to us. NK is a total dictatorship, thier people will never know what's going on or be help accountable.

If Iran or N Korea will not follow a treaty what ....difference does it make if we have 1500 or 15,000 warheads?

We are no safer either way

The treaty is with Russia, the only country capable of exchanging nukes with the US. All the other puppets could be easily whiped out by either one of us without retalliation