START on its way to ratification

[Dr.House]

The pentagon brass is unanimously for it. This direction was universally accepted by every president since Nixon.

To object is to pick nits. But the real reason why rejecting this treaty is stupid is because it undermines all non proliferation efforts.

If our nation and Russia can have unlimited nukes why can't Iran, NK and AQ? There is no moral authority to deny them.

I didn't say I objected to it - I said it should have had more discussion...

 

[Trajan]

what 'lefties', hon?

The ones who posted above me...


I don't believe enough time was spent on it...


Yay...

pure partisan hackery not to ratify it notwithstanding the propaganda of mitch mcconnell and john kyl.

I'd rather see more discussion... That's not partisan hackery, hon...

The pentagon brass is unanimously for it. This direction was universally accepted by every president since Nixon.

To object is to pick nits. But the real reason why rejecting this treaty is stupid is because it undermines all non proliferation efforts.

If our nation and Russia can have unlimited nukes why can't Iran, NK and AQ? There is no moral authority to deny them.

missile defesne has never ever been mentioned in any start treaty. period. if this is so important to us and Russia, obama can pick up the red phone and have putin say so, so we all know it, that is obama will tell him hes pulling out any language on missle def. from the preamble.


In addition while hes got him on the line, he can tell him we want the camera back in say, the Votkinsk Strategic Missle factory. Do that, I'm cool.

 

[DiamondDave]

It's amazing, you pick what might be the only thing Ronnie and Bushie 41 ever did right and you disagree with it.

What does that mean?

It's amazing that your hyper-partisanship leads to such ignorance

I am completely non partisan, egg on face.

Unlike you I don't allow childish ideological allegiance to separate me from the good of the nation.

Yeah... ok I at least fully admit my conservative stances.. I don't try and portray it any different
And I will disagree with party when it does not abide by a conservative stance

Limiting arsenal does not equate to the 'good of the nation'

 

[Jroc]

Obama is clueless he negotiates with the Russians and they play him for the fool that he is. Answer me this you libs.. Why would he make a deal with them and not make a part of that deal, Not to help Iran finish it's nuclear power plant? Why right after this stupid deal, Russia and Venezuela announce a deal to build a nuclear power plant for Chavez? One more thing, just to show you people the total stupidity of this man Obama... " "World without Nuclear weapons" he's a joke


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tKNihT2UxQ"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tKNihT2UxQ[/ame]

Clueless idiot... if left up to people like him we would have never won the cold war.

 

[(R)IGHTeous 1]

We'll be lowering our nuke arsenal to bout 5,500 if I remember the article I read correctly, from 7,000 some.

That's fine, still a sufficient deterrent. My problem with START is that I worry it will make inspecting Russia's often disappearing and decaying nuke arsenal THAT much harder.

We're putting waaaay too much trust in them. I mean IT'S RUSSIA, RUN BY:

And the sort...........

 

[Shooter]

The new START treaty is garbage. If Obama has a brain cell remaining in his head he won't sign this.

All START will do is limit our nukes while Russia will be able to build them at will without us knowing about it and stockpile them.

I feel safer already.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You mean like when Reagan and Bush signed the first START treaties?

You act as if I agree with every President that is elected from the party I am registered with

I got news for you, wrongwinger... the person that does that is YOU , motherfucker

It's amazing, you pick what might be the only thing Ronnie and Bushie 41 ever did right and you disagree with it.

What does that mean?

Didn't Reagan bring down the Iron current?

 

[L.K.Eder]

You act as if I agree with every President that is elected from the party I am registered with

I got news for you, wrongwinger... the person that does that is YOU , motherfucker

It's amazing, you pick what might be the only thing Ronnie and Bushie 41 ever did right and you disagree with it.

What does that mean?

Didn't Reagan bring down the Iron current?

 

[jillian]

I'd rather see more discussion... That's not partisan hackery, hon...

it's sticking to the 'ihopehefails' party line. so yes, it is.

do you think every past president and secretary of state is somehow shilling for the president?

you want to see us weakened in the eyes of the soviet union to satisfy mitch mcconnell's political agenda?

 

[DiveCon]

did anyone else notice that this treaty calls for the US to reduce, yet it allows Russia to INCREASE what it has?

 

[JakeStarkey]

did anyone else notice that this treaty calls for the US to reduce, yet it allows Russia to INCREASE what it has?

You reading the same treaty? Give some evidence, please, because if you are right, it should not be signed.

 

[Old Rocks]

Why do you presume that because Democrats want it, it's what is best for the country?

Is there anything wrong with actually debating and discussing the treaty before we rush to ratify it? I am seriously getting tired of people pretending that things are so important we have to have no idea what's in it before we pass it. That's just insane.

We have had a year to discuss and debate it. Time for a vote.

 

[Old Rocks]

did anyone else notice that this treaty calls for the US to reduce, yet it allows Russia to INCREASE what it has?

Yap yap, but no links for evidence. Will you ever back up your yap yap?

 

[Old Rocks]

You act as if I agree with every President that is elected from the party I am registered with

I got news for you, wrongwinger... the person that does that is YOU , motherfucker

It's amazing, you pick what might be the only thing Ronnie and Bushie 41 ever did right and you disagree with it.

What does that mean?

Didn't Reagan bring down the Iron current?

No, Afghanistan did.

 

[DiveCon]

did anyone else notice that this treaty calls for the US to reduce, yet it allows Russia to INCREASE what it has?

You reading the same treaty? Give some evidence, please, because if you are right, it should not be signed.

figures you didnt READ it, moron

 

[DiveCon]

Q. What is the New START treaty?

A. The 10-year treaty between the United States and Russia - formally the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty - is a successor to the first START nuclear arms-reduction treaty signed in 1991. That pact expired last year. Q. What does New START do?

A. Three main things: It would cap the number of deployed, long-range nuclear warheads on each side at 1,550, down from 2,200. It would reduce the number of deployed nuclear-carrying submarines, long-range missiles and heavy bombers to a maximum of 700, with 100 more in reserve (the U.S. currently has about 850 deployed; Russia has an estimated 565). Finally, it would reestablish a system in which each of the nuclear giants monitors the other's arsenal. That system ended last year. Q. Is it a dramatic step in disarmament?

A. Not really. Because there are different rules in START 1 and START 2 on counting warheads, the reduction may well be less than 30 percent. Also, the treaty doesn't mandate that the warheads be destroyed - they will be added to the thousands the United States keeps in storage.

But the treaty is a first step in President Obama's nuclear agenda, which envisions moving on to a second round of more ambitious negotiations. In addition, the Obama administration believes the treaty will bolster U.S. leadership in going after nuclear cheaters.

Q. What do opponents say?

A. They fall into different camps. Some believe traditional arms-control is outdated and it would be better to focus on building an ambitious missile shield, something like President Ronald Reagan's "Star Wars" vision.

Others accept the policy of recent presidents of a more limited shield to protect against threats from countries such as Iran and North Korea. But they worry about a few mentions of missile defense in New START. While those phrases would not legally bar the United States from carrying out its current missile-defense plans, some Republicans worry Russia would seize on them to pressure Washington in the future.

Finally, some senators are angry about the process. Republicans have complained about considering the treaty in the waning days of a lame-duck session in which Obama has racked up several legislative victories.
What is the New START treaty?

right there for you jokey, and olfraud too

 

[DiveCon]

did anyone else notice that this treaty calls for the US to reduce, yet it allows Russia to INCREASE what it has?

Yap yap, but no links for evidence. Will you ever back up your yap yap?

when will you ever fucking READ the facts posted

 

[Old Rocks]

It's amazing that your hyper-partisanship leads to such ignorance

I am completely non partisan, egg on face.

Unlike you I don't allow childish ideological allegiance to separate me from the good of the nation.

Yeah... ok I at least fully admit my conservative stances.. I don't try and portray it any different
And I will disagree with party when it does not abide by a conservative stance

Limiting arsenal does not equate to the 'good of the nation'

Limiting arsenal? How much nuclear arsenal is needed to blow us back to the stone age? We have enough to do that. Russia has enough to do that. The other nations combined have enough to do that.

Remember the little incident where nuclear tipped cruise missiles were left unguarded on a plane that was near the perimeter of the airbase? Right here in the US? How long before someone, Al Queda or any other group of fruitloops with a grudge against the rest of humanity, gets there hands on one or more of these weopons? The less there are of them, worldwide, the safer we all are. Both Russia and the US want more and strickter controls on these weopons. It is in our mutual self interest. And if we both cut our arsenals of them to 1/4, we would still have enough to end civilization.

 

[Old Rocks]

I think the basic problem here is that Conservatives regard anything that kills fellow humans as good, and anything that improves the lot of their fellow humans as bad, socialistic. A certain pathology seems evident here.

 

[Old Rocks]

did anyone else notice that this treaty calls for the US to reduce, yet it allows Russia to INCREASE what it has?

Yap yap, but no links for evidence. Will you ever back up your yap yap?

when will you ever fucking READ the facts posted

When have you ever posted one single fucking fact, idjit.