No wonder Russia agreed with the New Start treaty

[bigrebnc1775]

That is your opinion, given in reply to a substantiated, sourced evidence that proves your claim nonsense.

You fail.

Besides your opinion do you have anything any shread of evidence?

 

[JakeStarkey]

It was sourced in #92 above. A source need only be given once. Admit your fail, and let's move on.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

It was sourced in #92 above. A source need only be given once. Admit your fail, and let's move on.

Your source to this post joke wheres your proof?
http://www.usmessageboard.com/3157768-post100.html

 

[Annie]

Very good junior you used a source now
do you have any proof (threads or posts where you used a link) that you use a source when you insert your opinion? If you do use a source I am sure you can share it I am sure you have it readily avaible.

<snip> because jake has no link just an opinionated post and has no merit to the discussion

Jake is now stuck on the appeal of authority, starting with Kissinger, the Republican for good measure I guess.

In fact the discussion is moot, the treaty's approved. For better or worse we'll see how it goes. The fact that not only Jakey has to use the logical fallacy, but so did the administration and the Senate bought it is irrelevant.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Annie, the authority is from those who know far better than you or me or bigreb about this issue. A logical fallacy is defined as "A logical fallacy is a collapse in logic often used in debate to mislead or distract people from the real issue. This article will show you examples of a logical fallacy." Logical Fallacy: Definition and Example of a Logical Fallacy An appeal to authority in this case is logical. Any attempt to undermine it is "to mislead or distract people from the real issue."

Yes, the issue is moot, and the OP and its defense are fail.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Wow, it needs a "parachute" to pull it out of the plane? Must be big.

If an air-burst is the intention, ya' gotta have a parachute.....AND, a plane (what bigrebnc1775 must consider a state-o'-the-art delivery-system). ​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

In the Liberal's fantasy the Liberal survives Nuclear war because they are smarter.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.....and, "conservatives" merely jumped on the marketing-efforts (in the '50s/early-'60s), huh??

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQ7_0zRxF7k[/ame]
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sF_FRYGUO2I&feature=related[/ame]​

 

[Annie]

Annie, the authority is from those who know far better than you or me or bigreb about this issue. A logical fallacy is defined as "A logical fallacy is a collapse in logic often used in debate to mislead or distract people from the real issue. This article will show you examples of a logical fallacy." Logical Fallacy: Definition and Example of a Logical Fallacy An appeal to authority in this case is logical. Any attempt to undermine it is "to mislead or distract people from the real issue."

Yes, the issue is moot, and the OP and its defense are fail.

No, it's not the authorities that are the problem, though they may well be. It's that their endorsement of the treaty doesn't necessarily result in it's being a good treaty. Whether presidents or secretaries of state, both are very exclusive clubs. They tend not to undermine each other.

As pointed out earlier in another post, these men all were in agreement of real change in Russia with collapse of communism. Putin has definitely changed that. To ignore reality because of false hopes is not in the best interests of our country. Or it may be. In any case just because past presidents or secretaries of state 'agree with the principles' doesn't make it so.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

guys, the quotes are messed up

Nahhhhhhhhhhhhh....."conservative" responses all (just) sound that way.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

every past president and every past secretary of state agreed with it, too.

man you guys are p'nuts.

If so, does that mean it's beyond discussion? Automatically right?

Seems to me that those same people had a whole lot of faith in Russian political change, yet that doesn't seem to be real either:

Mikhail Khodorkovsky Verdict: The End to Russian Democracy - The Daily Beast

The End to Russian Democracy

by David Satter

The sentence of Russian businessman Mikhail Khodorkovsky this week is a tragedy that signals Russia’s political corruption.

Despite criticism from the U.S. and an appeal on Friday by Mikhail Khodorkovsky’s lawyers, it appears the former head of the Yukos Oil Company will spend as much time in the Gulag as many Stalin-era political prisoners. His sentence of 13.5 years for fraud means that he will not be a free man until 2017, if then. The presiding judge in the case said that correcting Khodorkovsky would only be possible if he was isolated from society.

In fact, however, the Putin regime is not concerned about correcting Khodorkovsky. The arrest and sentencing of Khodorkovsky made it possible to complete the transformation of Russia into a controlled society with a permanent political leadership and a president for life (Putin). It is for this reason that Putin not only hates Khodorkovsky but, to a degree, fears him. Putin cannot abide the implicit challenge that Khodorkovsky at liberty would represent...

Unlike the other Russian oligarchs, who amassed wealth in similar ways, however, Khodorkovsky realized that the Russian rules of gangster capitalism had to change if Russia was ever to be a civilized country and he took steps to transform Yukos into a modern Western company. He declared his income and introduced Western standards of accounting and governance. He also began to exercise the rights of a Western businessman, including the right to finance opposition political parties. It was this that set him on a collision course with Putin...

Khodorkovsky must now return to the Siberian labor camp where he has served his long sentence with modesty and great personal dignity. His fate is, of course, a tragedy for him and his family. But it is also a tragedy for Russia. Khodorkovsky is the object of Putin’s vindictiveness not for any crime he may have committed but for what he represents. This is not just the corruption of the Yeltsin years but also the hope for a better and more honest future.

David Satter is a senior fellow of the Hudson Institute and a fellow of the Foreign Policy Institute of the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS). His latest book, Haunted Ground: Russia and the Communist Past, is due out next year from the Yale University Press.

Putin runs Russia. Period. Putin is former KGB. No KGB agent ever becomes "ex"KGB. KGB agents were trained to distrust their enemies. The USA is an enemy of the KGB. Putin distrusts and probably hates the US. Putin is a paranoid little despot.

i.e. Putin is a Russian-"conservative".

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Putin runs Russia. Period. Putin is former KGB. No KGB agent ever becomes "ex"KGB. KGB agents were trained to distrust their enemies. The USA is an enemy of the KGB. Putin distrusts and probably hates the US. Putin is a paranoid little despot. Example is how he is systematically beating back freedoms won by the Russian people, business and media. And of course Putin is busily putting his perceived political enemies in prison.
This latest knee capping of the US by idiot dove politicians(START) has Russia laughing their collective asses off. Inspections? One would have to be on crack if they believe the Russians are going to play nice-nice with US nuclear weapons inspectors. The Russians will demand we obey the treaty while they stonewall us on their cooperation.
This Obama Administration should be ashamed of themselves for all they did by signing that treaty was weaken a country.
We had the Russians down and should have kept them down.

Well, swami - every leading expert on international relations (including all living Presidents and SecDefs) are all in favor of the new START treaty. (START I and II were His High Holiness himself's babies, of course, signed by Bush Sr.). Your crystal ball predictions of what will happen because of this are about as meaningless as Ms. Cleo.

my only problem with this treaty, like the previous one, it allows Russia to actually increase numbers, while we are reducing

I'm sure you can show everyone (here) the documentation to prove that.

You're on-the-clock.....

<tick><tick><tick><tick><tick><tick><tick><tick>​

 

[Annie]

and as the last few posts suggest, the previous secretaries of state and presidents that looked in other leaders eyes, were not always correct in their assessments.

To rely on their endorsements now as proof positive there was no need to look more closely at the treaty, by the Senate, is illogical. But it's done.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Annie, the authority is from those who know far better than you or me or bigreb about this issue. A logical fallacy is defined as "A logical fallacy is a collapse in logic often used in debate to mislead or distract people from the real issue. This article will show you examples of a logical fallacy." Logical Fallacy: Definition and Example of a Logical Fallacy An appeal to authority in this case is logical. Any attempt to undermine it is "to mislead or distract people from the real issue."

Yes, the issue is moot, and the OP and its defense are fail.

Any attempt to undermine it is "to mislead or distract people from the real issue."

With this post from jake is the tell all of the intent. Why would the russians be so quick to agree to a new start treaty? Anytime the russians have been quick to agree to something it was because it was good for them. Now who is undermining the countries security?

 

[JakeStarkey]

and as the last few posts suggest, the previous secretaries of state and presidents that looked in other leaders eyes, were not always correct in their assessments.

To rely on their endorsements now as proof positive there was no need to look more closely at the treaty, by the Senate, is illogical. But it's done.

That is certainly an opinion.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Annie, the authority is from those who know far better than you or me or bigreb about this issue. A logical fallacy is defined as "A logical fallacy is a collapse in logic often used in debate to mislead or distract people from the real issue. This article will show you examples of a logical fallacy." Logical Fallacy: Definition and Example of a Logical Fallacy An appeal to authority in this case is logical. Any attempt to undermine it is "to mislead or distract people from the real issue."

Yes, the issue is moot, and the OP and its defense are fail.

Any attempt to undermine it is "to mislead or distract people from the real issue."

With this post from jake is the tell all of the intent. Why would the russians be so quick to agree to a new start treaty? Anytime the russians have been quick to agree to something it was because it was good for them. Now who is undermining the countries security?

That is certainly an opinion. Since we are giving opinions, bigreb, I believe that the very small group questioning the wisdom of START undermines the country's security for base political reasons, not for love of country.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

i dont see how reducing nukes will harm america. its not like we and russia cant kill each other 100 times over even with the reductions

It comes as no surprise "you don't see"..
Most people do not know or bother to try to research our history in dealing with Russia and the old USSR.
Additionally it comes as no surprise that you think the two nations could destroy each other "100 times over"....
Look, the reason why there never has been a nuclear conflict between the US And Russia/USSR is because of the number of nukes in our respective arsenals. It's called "mutually assured destruction"...
Each country knows that if one fires an ICBM at the other, the second nation MUST respond in kind. Once the missile is launched it cannot be recalled or destroyed before the warheads detonate over, yes over their target(s). The nightmarish thought of entire cities leveled and melted into glass and the ensuing nuclear winter that would essentially destroy all viable life on the planet is just too much for sane people to bear. So we essentially have a loaded gun pointed at each other for peacekeeping purposes.
START gives the Russians an advantage. An advantage that could lead to the end of our country.

Who told you, that....Porky Limbaugh??????




[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7J8eMyK1DI&feature=related[/ame]

*

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCEwUnD0xmo&feature=related[/ame]

(The Brits' version of The Day After.)​

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Annie, the authority is from those who know far better than you or me or bigreb about this issue. A logical fallacy is defined as "A logical fallacy is a collapse in logic often used in debate to mislead or distract people from the real issue. This article will show you examples of a logical fallacy." Logical Fallacy: Definition and Example of a Logical Fallacy An appeal to authority in this case is logical. Any attempt to undermine it is "to mislead or distract people from the real issue."

Yes, the issue is moot, and the OP and its defense are fail.

Any attempt to undermine it is "to mislead or distract people from the real issue."

With this post from jake is the tell all of the intent. Why would the russians be so quick to agree to a new start treaty? Anytime the russians have been quick to agree to something it was because it was good for them. Now who is undermining the countries security?

That is certainly an opinion. Since we are giving opinions, bigreb, I believe that the very small group questioning the wisdom of START undermines the country's security for base political reasons, not for love of country.

Not just and opinion of mine maybe you would enjoy this

STRATFOR and New START&#8230; In2theFray

 

[DiveCon]

Well, swami - every leading expert on international relations (including all living Presidents and SecDefs) are all in favor of the new START treaty. (START I and II were His High Holiness himself's babies, of course, signed by Bush Sr.). Your crystal ball predictions of what will happen because of this are about as meaningless as Ms. Cleo.

my only problem with this treaty, like the previous one, it allows Russia to actually increase numbers, while we are reducing

I'm sure you can show everyone (here) the documentation to prove that.

You're on-the-clock.....

<tick><tick><tick><tick><tick><tick><tick><tick>​

if you are unaware of the details by now, then you are behind the curve


so fuck off

 

[Mr. Shaman]

obama just fucked America

".....dropable-bomb..."

oooooooooooooooooooooooooooo, how threatening.

Now, we're gonna have to Up-the-ante.....and, figure-out how to detect/track Russian-bombers.........with some reheated WWII-tech.

One bomb just as power as a nuke but without the radiation what a concept for the victors.

That was supposed to be one o' the perks of Neutron-bombs....kill everyone/everything (within range)....without sacrificing infrastructure.​

"Development was subsequently postponed by President Jimmy Carter in 1978 following protests against his administration's plans to deploy neutron warheads in Europe. President Ronald Reagan restarted production in 1981.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

my only problem with this treaty, like the previous one, it allows Russia to actually increase numbers, while we are reducing

I'm sure you can show everyone (here) the documentation to prove that.

You're on-the-clock.....

<tick><tick><tick><tick><tick><tick><tick><tick>​

if you are unaware of the details by now, then you are behind the curve


so fuck off

Ms. Sheman is basically just unaware... PERIOD.