Why are the Republicans stopping START??

[Two Thumbs]

Are those of you that claim the gop is putting party ahead of people aware that the old treaty expired a year ago?

If this was so damn important, why wasn't this done a year ago?

or were the dims putting party ahead of people then?

Or maybe
Just MAYBE

They knew it was a waste of time and money b/c russia, while not an ally, certainly can not be considered an actual enemy.

It's grandstanding people, and you all fell for it.

Bush was working behind the scenes to block it.

Really? Bush?

I heard it was clinton (bill), undermining big 0 to get him out and his wife in.

oh well.
~~~~~~~~~``

What a waste of fucking time this shit is.

HEY DEMOCRATS!!

What's unemployment at? How's the economy doing?

Don't worry about that shit. Failing on it, hard, it only a tinnie tiny part of what got you tossed from the house.

 

[Trajan]

Why don't you Republicans her just be honest?

You want to delay the ratification of the START treaty so that you can eventually kill it once the new Congress comes aboard. Republicans have no interest in reducing nuclear proliferation if a Republican cannot take credit for it

no need, Reagan and Bush 1?

 

[Two Thumbs]

Why don't you Republicans her just be honest?

You want to delay the ratification of the START treaty so that you can eventually kill it once the new Congress comes aboard. Republicans have no interest in reducing nuclear proliferation if a Republican cannot take credit for it

good lord

Why don't you admit it's a grandstanding moment?

The old start ended a year ago.

The russians? Are you actually, truthfully, concerned that the russians are coming? They have been on the brink of collapse for a long time now, they are not going to man thier tanks and come rushing over the boarders any time soon.

 

[Shmoogas B]

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?

People have enough nuclear weapons to completely flatten the entire world with nuclear bombs. It's a scary situation and one that makes it seem like it's just a matter of time before humans wipe themselves out. With this powerful technology, we need to have a discussion about how the world responds to the situation.

One strategy is to build up as big a stockpile as possible of nuclear arms, knowing that you enemy is doing the same, so that both parties could obliterate the other. This is what we did in the Cold War. Another strategy is to try to minimize the number of nukes out there, including your own, though this leaves open the possibility that some renegade opponent will create a large stockpile of nuclear weapons and you won't have enough to respond or to threaten them in return, leaving you open to attack.

It's a difficult question, but with regards to START, even if we reduce our number of nuclear arms, we'll still easily have enough to flatten the whole world with nuclear bombs. So it doesn't really matter that much, unless this is the first step to trying to eliminate nuclear weapons altogether.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

The Democrats must prove that all of their members have read the START Treaty from front to back before i would support even debating its passage. Prove to me that Reid & Pelosi know what the hell they're talking about on this and i'll consider the vote. I think most Americans just want to see this Dem-led Congress go away. What's the rush? This can wait till January.

 

[kiwiman127]

This Lameduck crew has to go. When they're gone,something as important as this can be properly debated. As usual the Democrats are trying to jam something very flawed down the American Peoples' throats. This is something the new Congress should tackle. No one has any faith in this Dem-Led Worst Congress in History. Let the real Congress take this on. See ya next year.

Above is a perfect example of partisan ignorance. What exactly don't you like about START?
Why is it that James A. Baker, Colin Powell, Henry Kissinger, Madeleine Albright, Bill Cohen,
William Perry and General Brent Scowcroft amongst others support it? Do you folks who are whining about START have an opponet of START you can quote, who equals the credentials of the experts who support START?
Come on let's see your cards!
All I have seen is partisan talking points. If that's all you can muster up,,give up, you lose.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Why is it that James A. Baker, Colin Powell, Henry Kissinger, Madeleine Albright, Bill Cohen,
William Perry and General Brent Scowcroft amongst others support it?

Proof positive it is bad news. Seriously.. Madeleine Albright?? Good Lord.

 

[L.K.Eder]

This Lameduck crew has to go. When they're gone,something as important as this can be properly debated. As usual the Democrats are trying to jam something very flawed down the American Peoples' throats. This is something the new Congress should tackle. No one has any faith in this Dem-Led Worst Congress in History. Let the real Congress take this on. See ya next year.

Above is a perfect example of partisan ignorance. What exactly don't you like about START?
Why is it that James A. Baker, Colin Powell, Henry Kissinger, Madeleine Albright, Bill Cohen,
William Perry and General Brent Scowcroft amongst others support it? Do you folks who are whining about START have an opponet of START you can quote, who equals the credentials of the experts who support START?
Come on let's see your cards!
All I have seen is partisan talking points. If that's all you can muster up,,give up, you lose.

nah, they win. you know. there are a lot of them. and they are loud.

it does not matter that even the military experts say that new START should be ratified.

 

[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?

START is directed at limiting strategic offensive arms.

obama's and medvedev's new START has not been ratified yet.

so, new START did give Russia nothing yet, you are confused.

But you can enlighten me how it would give Russia a veto against a RADAR system, when ratified.

I never said it was ratified, which is why I said I would vote against it. Since you obviously do not read, you probably didn't bother paying attention w=to the news when the treaty was first announced either.

Did the Russians Win on Missile Defense in the New START Treaty? | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.

Since the treaty itself is unavailable to me, not being a Senator, I do not know what it actually says, but Russia says it gives them the right to stop any defensive system, including RADAR systems to watch for missile launches. Obama says it doesn't, but he also said I could keep my health insurance.

 

[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.

yeah, amazing. one only need to read the first page of the 17 page pdf to find the connection between the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear
Weapons of 1968 and START.

or listen to what the senators said who voted for it in committee.

or use your brain.

START supports NNPT.

START only impacts the NNPT if Russia decides not to help Iran develop nuclear power. How well is that working again?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

There is ONLY one reason for the gop to fight this.

They place party over country.

Like the Democrats did when they passed Obamacare after Obama told him he needed it to save his presidency?

 

[LibocalypseNow]

It's weird watching people cheerleading and pushing stuff like this without even knowing what the Legislation or Treaty says. We all know Pelosi & Reid have not read this Treaty from front to back. They jam Legislation through all the time without even reading it. So why would this Treaty be any different? In fact i seriously doubt this OP has read the START Treaty from front to back either. So why all the cheerleading? I see no rush in this. It can wait till January.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

There have been 26 Congressional meetings on this so far without significant Republican input

Herein may lie the problem. They have been shutout since day one... it ain't like that no more.

It is a significant enough deal that I don't see how careful consideration and debate is a problem. But then again, as you noted, Obama getting a treaty under his belt may be priority numero uno rather than the substantive meat of the treaty.

What unmitigated bullshit.

Their input has been included in every bill going through the legislation process.

Republican strategy is as follows:

-Lard each bill with as many clauses as possible.
-Complain to the media that they have not been included in the process.
-Make up false things about the bill.
-Filibuster
-Not vote on the bill once there is cloture.

Sure it has.

Which is why the White House stood up in front of the entire world and claimed that the Republicans had no alternatives, or even ideas, during the health care debate, while including a link to the Republican proposals on its website.

 

[L.K.Eder]

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.

yeah, amazing. one only need to read the first page of the 17 page pdf to find the connection between the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear
Weapons of 1968 and START.

or listen to what the senators said who voted for it in committee.

or use your brain.

START supports NNPT.

START only impacts the NNPT if Russia decides not to help Iran develop nuclear power. How well is that working again?

so, was the text of the treaty available to you now, do you need the link to the 165 page protocol, too.

shall i take you by the hand?

your only game is a no,you and deflection when called out.

oh, and ciriititicizien grammar and punctuation, when cornered.

 

[Truthmatters]

There is ONLY one reason for the gop to fight this.

They place party over country.

Like the Democrats did when they passed Obamacare after Obama told him he needed it to save his presidency?

Please outline how giving people access to healthcare and saving the government money is in any way partisan politics?

You see voting against our national defense interests is being a partisan hack who places party over country.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

My prediction is that the Democrats and the Obamy are going to start floating that "Crisis" word on this very soon. It's always all about that "Crisis" when they want to jam something through. Prepare for the "START Treaty Crisis" rhetoric. Stay tuned.

 

[L.K.Eder]

There is ONLY one reason for the gop to fight this.

They place party over country.

Like the Democrats did when they passed Obamacare after Obama told him he needed it to save his presidency?

Please outline how giving people access to healthcare and saving the government money is in any way partisan politics?

You see voting against our national defense interests is being a partisan hack who places party over country.

don't get distracted by his little bullshit games.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Why don't you Republicans her just be honest?

You want to delay the ratification of the START treaty so that you can eventually kill it once the new Congress comes aboard. Republicans have no interest in reducing nuclear proliferation if a Republican cannot take credit for it

Umm

A lot of this treaty was negotiated by Bush.

 

[Truthmatters]

They have already said their main goal while in power was to make Obama a one termer.

That means they put everything second or less including the countries self defense.

This act is just proof of what they have already said.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

yeah, amazing. one only need to read the first page of the 17 page pdf to find the connection between the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear
Weapons of 1968 and START.

or listen to what the senators said who voted for it in committee.

or use your brain.

START supports NNPT.

START only impacts the NNPT if Russia decides not to help Iran develop nuclear power. How well is that working again?

so, was the text of the treaty available to you now, do you need the link to the 165 page protocol, too.

shall i take you by the hand?

your only game is a no,you and deflection when called out.

oh, and ciriititicizien grammar and punctuation, when cornered.

I actually pay attention when POTUS talks about foreign policy. He offered to reduce nuclear weapons if the Russians agreed to stop Iran from developing nuclear power. You can link to whatever you like, but you will not convince me that Iran does not have a functioning power plant right now.