Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
What negotiation text and what does Putin have to do with it. Links please.
the text of the negotiations/discussions, the hammer and nails meetings that were conducted between our negotiators and theirs. It appears that there is a lot of we avow, we will, we may.... instead of the will be, we agree to etc...the opt out language is still hanging out there, regards our work on abm and the shield etc. Putin was supposed to address this ( see below). It was linked in the the thread on this I am pretty sure.
one quickie...
Missile defense is another obstacle, not least because the treaty preamble explicitly says either party can drop out if future missile defenses are developed. The Russians say this prevents future U.S. defenses without Russian consent, but the U.S. says this is merely a traditional opt-out clause contained in every treaty.
At a minimum, this strikes us as a re-coupling of offensive and defensive weapons that the Bush Administration worked hard to de-couple. Our guess is the Russians will use defenses as a bargaining chip in the next negotiations over tactical (shorter-range) nuclear weapons that New Start ignores. Will Mr. Obama go along?
The question is relevant given that Mr. Obama campaigned against missile defense and his first budget cut spending for missile defenses by 15% before restoring half of that under pressure this year. To win the Russians over on New Start, the Administration also pulled the plug on President Bush's plans to deploy 10 ground-based interceptors in Poland and a radar site in the Czech Republic that would have protected the U.S. by 2015.
In its place, Mr. Obama supports the phased deployment of a system that will defend Europe before extending the umbrella to the U.S. at the earliest by 2020. But that full land-based Aegis anti-missile system now exists only on a drawing board. Meanwhile, the Pentagon recently reported that Iran may have a missile able to hit the U.S. by 2015. Republicans should win Mr. Obama's commitments to restore more robust missile defense funding before voting on New Start.
Review & Outlook: The Nuclear Treaty Rush - WSJ.com
the 'phased deployment ' counts on nato countries kicking in spome serious coin, and that agreement is also rife with; we wish to, we want it understood etc....I did post a link and article to this in the other thread.
As I recall, the Poles and the Czechs were opposed to the missile shield on their territory.
"How DARE the GOP not do what Democrats tell them to do!!"The problem as I see it is that the Republicans want a perfect, failsafe document with some Godlike guarantee that it will prevent a secret launch of a nuclear warhead. Puleeze, in order to get something like that, the Senate would need to work overtime every day for 10 years and at each phase, run it by the parties to the treaty. Nope, they are just being their usual pleasant obstructionists that we've all come to know so well.
the text of the negotiations/discussions, the hammer and nails meetings that were conducted between our negotiators and theirs. It appears that there is a lot of we avow, we will, we may.... instead of the will be, we agree to etc...the opt out language is still hanging out there, regards our work on abm and the shield etc. Putin was supposed to address this ( see below). It was linked in the the thread on this I am pretty sure.
one quickie...
Missile defense is another obstacle, not least because the treaty preamble explicitly says either party can drop out if future missile defenses are developed. The Russians say this prevents future U.S. defenses without Russian consent, but the U.S. says this is merely a traditional opt-out clause contained in every treaty.
At a minimum, this strikes us as a re-coupling of offensive and defensive weapons that the Bush Administration worked hard to de-couple. Our guess is the Russians will use defenses as a bargaining chip in the next negotiations over tactical (shorter-range) nuclear weapons that New Start ignores. Will Mr. Obama go along?
The question is relevant given that Mr. Obama campaigned against missile defense and his first budget cut spending for missile defenses by 15% before restoring half of that under pressure this year. To win the Russians over on New Start, the Administration also pulled the plug on President Bush's plans to deploy 10 ground-based interceptors in Poland and a radar site in the Czech Republic that would have protected the U.S. by 2015.
In its place, Mr. Obama supports the phased deployment of a system that will defend Europe before extending the umbrella to the U.S. at the earliest by 2020. But that full land-based Aegis anti-missile system now exists only on a drawing board. Meanwhile, the Pentagon recently reported that Iran may have a missile able to hit the U.S. by 2015. Republicans should win Mr. Obama's commitments to restore more robust missile defense funding before voting on New Start.
Review & Outlook: The Nuclear Treaty Rush - WSJ.com
the 'phased deployment ' counts on nato countries kicking in spome serious coin, and that agreement is also rife with; we wish to, we want it understood etc....I did post a link and article to this in the other thread.
As I recall, the Poles and the Czechs were opposed to the missile shield on their territory.
Poland agrees to host U.S. missile defense shield
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/06/world/europe/06iht-shield.4.14275435.html
aside from that, if that were so, why bother asking for something that wasn't going to happen? Putin is way to cagey to ask for in effect nothing and be expected to give something back, which btw he hasn't provided a quid pro quo yet.
The Wright Brothers? They only flew 120 feet, for 12 seconds. I tell you, powered aviation will never work out.Missile shield? What missile shield?
It doesn't work.
The only time it's worked is in very controlled tests, with clear skies, knowledge of where the test missile was being fired from..and when.
And it only works on missiles with really crude delivery systems.
The program has been halted too.
Missile shield? What missile shield?
It doesn't work.
The only time it's worked is in very controlled tests, with clear skies, knowledge of where the test missile was being fired from..and when.
And it only works on missiles with really crude delivery systems.
The program has been halted too.
....
The Wright Brothers? They only flew 120 feet, for 12 seconds. I tell you, powered aviation will never work out.Missile shield? What missile shield?
It doesn't work.
The only time it's worked is in very controlled tests, with clear skies, knowledge of where the test missile was being fired from..and when.
And it only works on missiles with really crude delivery systems.
The program has been halted too.
Sounds like the Left's War on Poverty...yet you still cling to it.The Wright Brothers? They only flew 120 feet, for 12 seconds. I tell you, powered aviation will never work out.Missile shield? What missile shield?
It doesn't work.
The only time it's worked is in very controlled tests, with clear skies, knowledge of where the test missile was being fired from..and when.
And it only works on missiles with really crude delivery systems.
The program has been halted too.
The missile sheild program had to spend billions and has acheived nothing. At least the Wright Bros were successful
Sounds like the Left's War on Poverty...yet you still cling to it.The Wright Brothers? They only flew 120 feet, for 12 seconds. I tell you, powered aviation will never work out.
The missile sheild program had to spend billions and has acheived nothing. At least the Wright Bros were successful
and of course the left never marches in step with left wing commentator/consensus...? this proves what? that the right agrees with the right? left agrees with the left?
do the articles have merit?
Really? I didn't know we'd stopped spending taxpayers' money on social programs for the poor.Sounds like the Left's War on Poverty...yet you still cling to it.The missile sheild program had to spend billions and has acheived nothing. At least the Wright Bros were successful
This wingnut doesn' realize the War on Poverty ended several decades ago
Really? I didn't know we'd stopped spending taxpayers' money on social programs for the poor.Sounds like the Left's War on Poverty...yet you still cling to it.
This wingnut doesn' realize the War on Poverty ended several decades ago
So, if the war ended, who won? Offhand, I'd say poverty won -- if the intent was actually to end poverty. However, in reality, Democrats won. They ensured generations of loyal Dem voters.
the text of the negotiations/discussions, the hammer and nails meetings that were conducted between our negotiators and theirs. It appears that there is a lot of we avow, we will, we may.... instead of the will be, we agree to etc...the opt out language is still hanging out there, regards our work on abm and the shield etc. Putin was supposed to address this ( see below). It was linked in the the thread on this I am pretty sure.
one quickie...
Missile defense is another obstacle, not least because the treaty preamble explicitly says either party can drop out if future missile defenses are developed. The Russians say this prevents future U.S. defenses without Russian consent, but the U.S. says this is merely a traditional opt-out clause contained in every treaty.
At a minimum, this strikes us as a re-coupling of offensive and defensive weapons that the Bush Administration worked hard to de-couple. Our guess is the Russians will use defenses as a bargaining chip in the next negotiations over tactical (shorter-range) nuclear weapons that New Start ignores. Will Mr. Obama go along?
The question is relevant given that Mr. Obama campaigned against missile defense and his first budget cut spending for missile defenses by 15% before restoring half of that under pressure this year. To win the Russians over on New Start, the Administration also pulled the plug on President Bush's plans to deploy 10 ground-based interceptors in Poland and a radar site in the Czech Republic that would have protected the U.S. by 2015.
In its place, Mr. Obama supports the phased deployment of a system that will defend Europe before extending the umbrella to the U.S. at the earliest by 2020. But that full land-based Aegis anti-missile system now exists only on a drawing board. Meanwhile, the Pentagon recently reported that Iran may have a missile able to hit the U.S. by 2015. Republicans should win Mr. Obama's commitments to restore more robust missile defense funding before voting on New Start.
Review & Outlook: The Nuclear Treaty Rush - WSJ.com
the 'phased deployment ' counts on nato countries kicking in spome serious coin, and that agreement is also rife with; we wish to, we want it understood etc....I did post a link and article to this in the other thread.
As I recall, the Poles and the Czechs were opposed to the missile shield on their territory.
Poland agrees to host U.S. missile defense shield
U.S. and Czech Republic to sign missile shield accord
Published: Sunday, July 6, 2008
U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said: ""We understand that there is a desire for defense modernization in Poland and particularly for air defense modernization in Poland. This is something that we support because it will make our ally, Poland, more capable.""
But Sikorski said there was still a long way to go.
""We are not at the end of the road as regards negotiations. We are in the middle of the road,"" he said.
""We have an agreement in principle.""
Any final agreement will have to be ratified by the Polish parliament.
The Czech government aims to submit a draft accord on the radar base to parliament in April.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/06/world/europe/06iht-shield.4.14275435.html
aside from that, why bother asking for something that wasn't going to happen? Putin is way to cagey to ask for in effect nothing and be expected to give something back, which btw he hasn't provided a quid pro quo yet.Disputes over the radar have alienated many Czechs, wary of any foreign military presence after the Soviet invasion in 1968 and the following two decades of occupation.
An opinion poll last month showed 68 percent of Czechs were against the shield, while 24 percent supported it.
"How DARE the GOP not do what Democrats tell them to do!!"The problem as I see it is that the Republicans want a perfect, failsafe document with some Godlike guarantee that it will prevent a secret launch of a nuclear warhead. Puleeze, in order to get something like that, the Senate would need to work overtime every day for 10 years and at each phase, run it by the parties to the treaty. Nope, they are just being their usual pleasant obstructionists that we've all come to know so well.
You'll just have to get over it. Or not. It's completely immaterial whether you do or not.
What negotiation text and what does Putin have to do with it. Links please.
the text of the negotiations/discussions, the hammer and nails meetings that were conducted between our negotiators and theirs. It appears that there is a lot of we avow, we will, we may.... instead of the will be, we agree to etc...the opt out language is still hanging out there, regards our work on abm and the shield etc. Putin was supposed to address this ( see below). It was linked in the the thread on this I am pretty sure.
one quickie...
Missile defense is another obstacle, not least because the treaty preamble explicitly says either party can drop out if future missile defenses are developed. The Russians say this prevents future U.S. defenses without Russian consent, but the U.S. says this is merely a traditional opt-out clause contained in every treaty.
At a minimum, this strikes us as a re-coupling of offensive and defensive weapons that the Bush Administration worked hard to de-couple. Our guess is the Russians will use defenses as a bargaining chip in the next negotiations over tactical (shorter-range) nuclear weapons that New Start ignores. Will Mr. Obama go along?
The question is relevant given that Mr. Obama campaigned against missile defense and his first budget cut spending for missile defenses by 15% before restoring half of that under pressure this year. To win the Russians over on New Start, the Administration also pulled the plug on President Bush's plans to deploy 10 ground-based interceptors in Poland and a radar site in the Czech Republic that would have protected the U.S. by 2015.
In its place, Mr. Obama supports the phased deployment of a system that will defend Europe before extending the umbrella to the U.S. at the earliest by 2020. But that full land-based Aegis anti-missile system now exists only on a drawing board. Meanwhile, the Pentagon recently reported that Iran may have a missile able to hit the U.S. by 2015. Republicans should win Mr. Obama's commitments to restore more robust missile defense funding before voting on New Start.
Review & Outlook: The Nuclear Treaty Rush - WSJ.com
the 'phased deployment ' counts on nato countries kicking in spome serious coin, and that agreement is also rife with; we wish to, we want it understood etc....I did post a link and article to this in the other thread.
As I recall, the Poles and the Czechs were opposed to the missile shield on their territory.
Party-first obstruction. Major Garrett, once a Fox News reporter and White House Press Corps member, now reporting for National Review, discusses Senator Kyle's crusade to block the START treaty, set for renewal before the end of December. Apparently, upon Kyle's signal, every Republican Senator will vote against ratification, even if a majority of them don't want to.
msnbc tv- msnbc.com
Ya cause those damn Republicans are to stupid to vote their conscious. Robots one and all.
Even sarcastically..
This speaks the truth.
Lockstep Republicans.
Gotta laugh.
Party-first obstruction. Major Garrett, once a Fox News reporter and White House Press Corps member, now reporting for National Review, discusses Senator Kyle's crusade to block the START treaty, set for renewal before the end of December. Apparently, upon Kyle's signal, every Republican Senator will vote against ratification, even if a majority of them don't want to.
msnbc tv- msnbc.com
the text of the negotiations/discussions, the hammer and nails meetings that were conducted between our negotiators and theirs. It appears that there is a lot of we avow, we will, we may.... instead of the will be, we agree to etc...the opt out language is still hanging out there, regards our work on abm and the shield etc. Putin was supposed to address this ( see below). It was linked in the the thread on this I am pretty sure.
one quickie...
Missile defense is another obstacle, not least because the treaty preamble explicitly says either party can drop out if future missile defenses are developed. The Russians say this prevents future U.S. defenses without Russian consent, but the U.S. says this is merely a traditional opt-out clause contained in every treaty.
At a minimum, this strikes us as a re-coupling of offensive and defensive weapons that the Bush Administration worked hard to de-couple. Our guess is the Russians will use defenses as a bargaining chip in the next negotiations over tactical (shorter-range) nuclear weapons that New Start ignores. Will Mr. Obama go along?
The question is relevant given that Mr. Obama campaigned against missile defense and his first budget cut spending for missile defenses by 15% before restoring half of that under pressure this year. To win the Russians over on New Start, the Administration also pulled the plug on President Bush's plans to deploy 10 ground-based interceptors in Poland and a radar site in the Czech Republic that would have protected the U.S. by 2015.
In its place, Mr. Obama supports the phased deployment of a system that will defend Europe before extending the umbrella to the U.S. at the earliest by 2020. But that full land-based Aegis anti-missile system now exists only on a drawing board. Meanwhile, the Pentagon recently reported that Iran may have a missile able to hit the U.S. by 2015. Republicans should win Mr. Obama's commitments to restore more robust missile defense funding before voting on New Start.
Review & Outlook: The Nuclear Treaty Rush - WSJ.com
the 'phased deployment ' counts on nato countries kicking in spome serious coin, and that agreement is also rife with; we wish to, we want it understood etc....I did post a link and article to this in the other thread.
As I recall, the Poles and the Czechs were opposed to the missile shield on their territory.
Poles and Czechs were not opposed from the looks of this:
BBC NEWS | Europe | Q&A: US missile defence
Party-first obstruction. Major Garrett, once a Fox News reporter and White House Press Corps member, now reporting for National Review, discusses Senator Kyle's crusade to block the START treaty, set for renewal before the end of December. Apparently, upon Kyle's signal, every Republican Senator will vote against ratification, even if a majority of them don't want to.
msnbc tv- msnbc.com
So...are you objecting to the lawful workings of a democratic republic, or freedom of the press? Because it's hard to tell.
