Why are the Republicans stopping START??

[Revere]

Who cares what Obama wants?

 

[Sallow]

Yeppers..5000 icbms..that's what we need alrighty. It only takes like 100 to basically get rid of all life on the planet..but 5000? Hmm..boy..

Cheap to keep too.

Deficit? What deficit. We got missiles!

 

[Revere]

And the shield.

 

[del]

Why are the Republicans stopping START? - The Week

Republican lawmakers are blocking a push by the Obama administration to get a major nuclear arms treaty ratified this year. The Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) was signed by Obama and Russian President Dmitri Medvedev back in April. The deal, which needs to be aproved by the Senate, would cut both countries' nuclear stockpile by about 30 percent. But Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ), the GOP point man on the issue, said he does not want to schedule a vote during the lame-duck session of Congress because there's not enough time to overcome complex and unresolved issues. What's behind the delay?

what part of "there's not enough time to overcome complex and unresolved issues." eludes you?

 

[USArmyRetired]

They don't want to stop building nukes. They want to start up the program again.

Ridiculous as that sounds.

We do need to start devoloping new Nuclear Weapons as well as Space Based Weapons for deterrance.

Reagan's solution to eliminate nuclear weapons: Create defenses that make them impotent, and trust but verify.
End result of Reagan's plan: Collapse of the USSR, and reduction of the probability of nuclear armageddon.

Obama's solution to eliminate nuclear weapons: Curtail or eliminate defenses against nuclear weapons, sign on to a treaty that would have no effect upon those that would actually use nuclear weapons, and ensure that nuclear deterrence would eventually fail, as there would be increasing uncertainty whether the nuclear weapons of the nations that had signed the Test Ban Treaty had functioning nuclear weapons or not, especially if you're going to then go and end the production of fissile materials for nuclear weapons.

End result of Obama's plan: Defenseless US against those whose moral duty to act includes nuking us.

 

[Mad Scientist]

Obama is not competent to preserve America's place in the world.

Iran does whateverthe fuck it wants and Obama does nothing.

All cults end badly, fucknuts.

Like the Tea Baggers???

The "TEA Bagger Cult" took the House and almost the Senate. What short memories you Liberals have!

 

[Revere]

Obama is not competent to preserve America's place in the world.

Iran does whateverthe fuck it wants and Obama does nothing.

All cults end badly, fucknuts.

Like the Tea Baggers???

The "TEA Bagger Cult" took the House and almost the Senate. What short memories you Liberals have!

23 out of 38 seats in play in the Senate were won by Republicans.

 

[Sallow]

And flouride..that's ruining the bodily fluids!

Yahooo..

Seriously..getting rid of even 2000 nukes would not put a dent in the number of times this country can destroy the world. And it would save a bundle.

 

[rightwinger]

Why are the Republicans stopping START? - The Week

Republican lawmakers are blocking a push by the Obama administration to get a major nuclear arms treaty ratified this year. The Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) was signed by Obama and Russian President Dmitri Medvedev back in April. The deal, which needs to be aproved by the Senate, would cut both countries' nuclear stockpile by about 30 percent. But Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ), the GOP point man on the issue, said he does not want to schedule a vote during the lame-duck session of Congress because there's not enough time to overcome complex and unresolved issues. What's behind the delay?

what part of "there's not enough time to overcome complex and unresolved issues." eludes you?

The part where the Republicans will block any legislation that could make Obama more electable. Mitch McConnell has already stated that is his primary objective

Until the Republicans can identify a specific objection and why the 26 meetings over the last ten months could not answer them...their motives are clear

 

[rightwinger]

Republicans once again show they are only giving lip service to deficit reduction. A chance to reduce the required number of nukes with an equal reduction from the Russians is passed up for political animosity.

The cost of sustaining those weapons and their platforms is huge.... the Republicans would rather chase pennies

 

[Revere]

Why are the Republicans stopping START? - The Week

Republican lawmakers are blocking a push by the Obama administration to get a major nuclear arms treaty ratified this year. The Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) was signed by Obama and Russian President Dmitri Medvedev back in April. The deal, which needs to be aproved by the Senate, would cut both countries' nuclear stockpile by about 30 percent. But Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ), the GOP point man on the issue, said he does not want to schedule a vote during the lame-duck session of Congress because there's not enough time to overcome complex and unresolved issues. What's behind the delay?

what part of "there's not enough time to overcome complex and unresolved issues." eludes you?

The part where the Republicans will block any legislation that could make Obama more electable. Mitch McConnell has already stated that is his primary objective

Until the Republicans can identify a specific objection and why the 26 meetings over the last ten months could not answer them...their motives are clear

Unlike cultists like you, some Americans see Obama for the disaster that he is.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Why are the Republicans stopping START? - The Week

Republican lawmakers are blocking a push by the Obama administration to get a major nuclear arms treaty ratified this year. The Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) was signed by Obama and Russian President Dmitri Medvedev back in April. The deal, which needs to be aproved by the Senate, would cut both countries' nuclear stockpile by about 30 percent. But Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ), the GOP point man on the issue, said he does not want to schedule a vote during the lame-duck session of Congress because there's not enough time to overcome complex and unresolved issues. What's behind the delay?

I don't know, but I know I would vote against it because it gave Russia everything they wanted, like the ability to veto us building a RADAR system anywhere where it might benefit our allies, and got us nothing in return. Pretty typical of the way Obama negotiates.

Obama: We want to build a RADAR so we can see if Iran launches a missile at Turkey.
Russia: You might use it to watch our children playing.
O: We can guarantee that will never happen.
R: No.
O: We will allow you real time access to the site and its data.
R: No.
O: We will reduce our nuclear missiles if you let us do it.
R: Reduce the missiles anyway, the answer is no.
O: OK

Didn't he do the same thing with Republicans on the Bush tax cuts?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Did the lame duck congress under President Bush take a 2 month holiday?

Wouldn't it make more sense for the Congress to finally pass a budget, which they have not done yet? Don't you think that some sort of spending plan would make sense, instead of worrying about something that has no immediate impact?

 

[uscitizen]

Why are the Republicans stopping START? - The Week

Republican lawmakers are blocking a push by the Obama administration to get a major nuclear arms treaty ratified this year. The Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) was signed by Obama and Russian President Dmitri Medvedev back in April. The deal, which needs to be aproved by the Senate, would cut both countries' nuclear stockpile by about 30 percent. But Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ), the GOP point man on the issue, said he does not want to schedule a vote during the lame-duck session of Congress because there's not enough time to overcome complex and unresolved issues. What's behind the delay?

Fear? Money to be made?

 

[hipeter924]

Did the lame duck congress under President Bush take a 2 month holiday?

Wouldn't it make more sense for the Congress to finally pass a budget, which they have not done yet? Don't you think that some sort of spending plan would make sense, instead of worrying about something that has no immediate impact?

I am waiting for what happens, if the government (Democrats and Republicans) fail to reduce the deficit and balance the budget within the next few years the US will go into a death spiral, then collapse, and result in revolution or civil war, some estimate at the current rate the US will collapse and split apart by 2020.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The world’s nuclear wannabes, starting with Iran, should send a thank you note to Senator Jon Kyl. After months of negotiations with the White House, he has decided to try to block the lame-duck Senate from ratifying the New Start arms control treaty
The treaty is so central to this country’s national security, and the objections from Mr. Kyl — and apparently the whole Republican leadership — are so absurd that the only explanation is their limitless desire to deny President Obama any legislative success.

The Republicans like to claim that they are the party of national security. We can only hope that other senators in the party will decide that the nation’s security interests must trump political maneuvering.

It amazes me that people who criticize others for not knowing what a treaty is about demonstrate their own lack of understanding immediately afterward. The Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty has nothing to do with preventing countries like Iran from developing nuclear weapons, that would be the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Since that was signed, and ratified, already the Senate does not have to worry about it, and you cannot blame Kyl, or anyone else, for Iran not paying attention to it.

I guess you could blame Obama for not doing enough to discourage Iran from ignoring it, but I doubt you will.

 

[uscitizen]

We will just become a new colony of China.

 

[hipeter924]

We will just become a new colony of China.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3yRzQz0KMyI&feature=related[/ame]
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfcoNlhxRow&feature=related[/ame]
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_HeW5vIUiE&feature=related[/ame]

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What Mr. Kyl did not mention is that there have already been countless briefings and 21 Senate hearings on the treaty — sufficient for Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, the country’s top military leaders, six former secretaries of state (from both parties), five former secretaries of defense (from both parties) and seven former nuclear weapons commanders to endorse it.

As for concerns about “modernization,” President Obama has already promised an extra $84 billion over 10 years to modernize the nation’s nuclear weapons complex and its arsenal. That would raise spending 20 percent above the levels of the Bush years and is far more than we think is necessary

Obama can promise all he wants, but I see a few problems with this one.

1. Obama will not be in office for another 10 years
2. The president does not make the final decision on the budget, Congress does.
3. Congress is prevented from authorizing spending more than 2 years at a time by the Constitution.

That makes this promise worth exactly as much as his "Yes we can, but..." spiel.

 

[hipeter924]

What Mr. Kyl did not mention is that there have already been countless briefings and 21 Senate hearings on the treaty — sufficient for Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, the country’s top military leaders, six former secretaries of state (from both parties), five former secretaries of defense (from both parties) and seven former nuclear weapons commanders to endorse it.

As for concerns about “modernization,” President Obama has already promised an extra $84 billion over 10 years to modernize the nation’s nuclear weapons complex and its arsenal. That would raise spending 20 percent above the levels of the Bush years and is far more than we think is necessary

Obama can promise all he wants, but I see a few problems with this one.

1. Obama will not be in office for another 10 years
2. The president does not make the final decision on the budget, Congress does.
3. Congress is prevented from authorizing spending more than 2 years at a time by the Constitution.

That makes this promise worth exactly as much as his "Yes we can, but..." spiel.

If the budget isn't fixed within the next 5 years there won't be an office for him to be elected to, the US will be bankrupt.