Why are the Republicans stopping START??

[Trajan]

It's about stopping Obama: The GOP's stated concerns are so absurd that the only explanation is their limitless desire to deny President Obama any legislative success," says The New York Times in an editorial. A failure to ratify this treaty would damage U.S. credibility overseas and undermine America's ability to pressure Iran on its illicit nuclear program. Surely "the nation's security interests must trump political maneuvering."

There are a couple things to do before the end of the year. If there was a budget, something the Dems never got around to passing during the fiasco that has been the last two years, that would reduce the need for a contionuing resolution and if the Dimbulbs hadn't run up a couple trillion in extra debt, the debt ceiling might not be so real important, either.

As it is, the government shuts down on December 3.

The START Treaty was signed when? Why was it it absolutely not important until now and suddenly it's front and center.

This whole fluff is grandstanding partisan hackery at its most pronounced. Do the work of the people and leave the stupidity of the the Big 0 until there's time to address it with reasonable diliberation.

Is this another one where we need to pass it to find out what's in it?

Sure, let's pay Congress for a month to sit around and twiddle their thumbs and do nothing.

agreed.

 

[Trajan]

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

Did they pass legislation THIS HUGE ?????

NO THEY DIDNT!

Renewing START doesn't need to be rewritten as a whole new agreement. It's the same agreement that has been renegotiated at least three times, and this one doesn't have any arguable surprises. Why don't you idiots do some background fact-checking for once in your sorry lives before you just start spewing your anti-everything horseshit?

that is not true.

 

[MaggieMae]

The GOP is interested in one thing...Making sure Obama fails

Yup, and that will become even more clear in the following two-four years, and by the time 2012 arrives, the general public will be totally fed up with it. Poll after poll shows a huge majority of the public WANTS THIS PARTISAN GRIDLOCK TO END, and for the parties to start talking like adults and compromising on important policies.

 

[MaggieMae]

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.

And yours will be extremely shortlived, my friend.

 

[MaggieMae]

And the shield.

Paid for jointly by NATO countries.

 

[MaggieMae]

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.

The START treaty is further assurance the rogue countries don't get their hands on the weapons. Iran may know how to create nuclear materials, but they do not have the warheads to deploy them. Russia does. I think I'd rather have Russia on our side than on Iran's.

 

[MaggieMae]

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!

Yes, the cult is brand new. Your point? Sane Republicans will be the ones that kill it, wait and see.

 

[Trajan]

And the shield.

Paid for jointly by NATO countries.

huum, so I can infer you mean the plan to post a couple of Aegis missile cruisers in the black sea? Do you think this plan is superior to its predecessor?

 

[MaggieMae]

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.

Well yes, Obama could decide to just nuke Iran (as many loons have suggested) which would touch of a nuclear conflagration all over the region. Irony intended. Or, he could decide to invade Iran, pull troops from Iraq and Afghanistan, run them through a fourth and fifth deployment to bloody their bodies and minds in yet another shithole, using armor and heavy equipment so battered by war they're not worth scrap metal. Yes, he could do that too. So yes, I guess by choosing the other option of sanctions and diplomacy are simply not enough to satisfy the old neocon mindset.

 

[MaggieMae]

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]

I'm simply baffled by this newfound awe directed toward what leaders of foreign countries say, whether it's China, Russia, Iran, Venezuela, and then proudly POST IT, as though it's some glorious moment of recognition of truth. No longer is there the patriotic "America First" attitude that has never allowed those voices to penetrate our wisdom. What the fuck is the MATTER with you people? Our WWII troops just laughed at Tokyo Rose as she made her daily doomsday predictions. While a soldier may have lain wounded in some foxhole, he knew in his heart America would live on even though he might not. Whatever happened to Americans that you are so eager to listen to and then BELIEVE foreign propaganda?

 

[MaggieMae]

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

Senate panel OKs new arms treaty with Russia | Reuters

...
The document Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev signed in April commits former Cold War foes Washington and Moscow to reduce deployed nuclear warheads by about 30 percent.
It picked up Republican support in the committee from Senators Bob Corker and Johnny Isakson. They voted yes along with Richard Lugar, the committee's top-ranking Republican.
But since treaties need 67 votes to pass the full Senate, support of at least eight Republicans will be required. Most Republicans have remained uncommitted for months, leaving the treaty's fate in limbo.
Still, arms control advocates said Thursday's committee vote was encouraging. "Bipartisan support is growing, momentum is picking up," said Tom Collina, research director for the Arms Control Association in Washington.
Obama, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton applauded the committee vote and urged the Senate to quickly ratify the treaty.


...
The treaty is broadly supported as an important step forward in arms control by former senior security officials from both Republican and Democratic administrations.
But some Republican senators say they worry it may limit U.S. missile defenses, and some want Obama to promise to spend more money modernizing the nuclear weapons that remain.
The committee passed a resolution to try to assuage these concerns, without actually changing the treaty text.
Written by Lugar, the resolution declared that the treaty does not "impose any limitations on the deployment of missile defense" apart from one clause banning the use of missile silos or submarine launch tubes to house missile interceptors.
The resolution also said that if the government doesn't adequately fund nuclear modernization, the president must report to Congress how he would remedy the shortfall -- and whether it was still in U.S. interests to stay in the treaty.
At the insistence of Republican Jim DeMint, the committee adopted another declaration that the United States was free to develop its missile defenses. But DeMint was absent for the final vote on the treaty.
..

Proving, of course, that Obama didn't just wake up Monday morning and say "Hey, I think I'll do a START treaty thing to boost my popularity. I'll do that now..." The whole damned thing has been in limbo for months because of guess who.

 

[Charles_Main]

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?

Because Obama is Naive and is ignoring the fact that we are giving far more then we get in the Treaty. Essentially we are destroying working nuclear war heads, in exchange for Russia destroying out dated systems that might not even work anyways.

There is not enough verification in the Treaty.

I know it is hard for some people to understand, but not all treaties to lower the number of Nukes are good, it is not always a great thing. If we are taking it in the ass then we should renegotiate.

 

[MaggieMae]

The Republicans can't contain themselves, the American People will quickly see what they are all about....stopping Obama at all costs....no matter what the consequences may be.

The next two years will be a hoot.

Hello they were elected to stop Obama. That is reality, so no amount of whining will gain any sympathy

If the purpose of a national election is just to give the boot to the existing president, then you need to check the Constitution. Good starting point for your sadly lacking education.

 

[Trajan]

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

Senate panel OKs new arms treaty with Russia | Reuters

...
The document Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev signed in April commits former Cold War foes Washington and Moscow to reduce deployed nuclear warheads by about 30 percent.
It picked up Republican support in the committee from Senators Bob Corker and Johnny Isakson. They voted yes along with Richard Lugar, the committee's top-ranking Republican.
But since treaties need 67 votes to pass the full Senate, support of at least eight Republicans will be required. Most Republicans have remained uncommitted for months, leaving the treaty's fate in limbo.
Still, arms control advocates said Thursday's committee vote was encouraging. "Bipartisan support is growing, momentum is picking up," said Tom Collina, research director for the Arms Control Association in Washington.
Obama, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton applauded the committee vote and urged the Senate to quickly ratify the treaty.


...
The treaty is broadly supported as an important step forward in arms control by former senior security officials from both Republican and Democratic administrations.
But some Republican senators say they worry it may limit U.S. missile defenses, and some want Obama to promise to spend more money modernizing the nuclear weapons that remain.
The committee passed a resolution to try to assuage these concerns, without actually changing the treaty text.
Written by Lugar, the resolution declared that the treaty does not "impose any limitations on the deployment of missile defense" apart from one clause banning the use of missile silos or submarine launch tubes to house missile interceptors.
The resolution also said that if the government doesn't adequately fund nuclear modernization, the president must report to Congress how he would remedy the shortfall -- and whether it was still in U.S. interests to stay in the treaty.
At the insistence of Republican Jim DeMint, the committee adopted another declaration that the United States was free to develop its missile defenses. But DeMint was absent for the final vote on the treaty.
..

Proving, of course, that Obama didn't just wake up Monday morning and say "Hey, I think I'll do a START treaty thing to boost my popularity. I'll do that now..." The whole damned thing has been in limbo for months because of guess who.

because he was campaigning for Obamacare, post approval and candidates?

do I win?

 

[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?

Because Obama is Naive and is ignoring the fact that we are giving far more then we get in the Treaty. Essentially we are destroying working nuclear war heads, in exchange for Russia destroying out dated systems that might not even work anyways.

There is not enough verification in the Treaty.

I know it is hard for some people to understand, but not all treaties to lower the number of Nukes are good, it is not always a great thing. If we are taking it in the ass then we should renegotiate.

The question is what do you need?

The cold war is over. The only country capable of going missile to missile with the US is Russia. If we both agree to cut down on the number of missiles...the whole world is safer

What is the difference in having 2200 warheads you never will use and 1500 warheads you never will use?

 

[MaggieMae]

Failing to ratify New START has real consequences - TheHill.com

...

The Secretary of Defense has written that New START has the "unanimous support" of the US military. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Admiral Mullen, testified in support of the treaty, as did the Director of the US Missile Defense Agency, Lt. Gen Patrick O'Reilly. The Commander of US nuclear forces (STRATCOM), General Kevin Chilton advised the Senate to ratify New START. He was joined by seven of the last eight commanders of STRATCOM who jointly wrote the Senate urging ratification.

...

Despite all of this, there are some in Washington who would urge the Senate to flatly ignore America's military and, in direct contradiction to their advice, postpone consideration of New START until some unspecified time in the future. But those who make this argument have failed to take responsibility for the likely consequences of that course of action, just as they typically fail to acknowledge that their recommendation enjoys no support at the Pentagon.

...

First, it means that the US ability to conduct on-site inspections will continue to be suspended...

...
And contrary to the erroneous claim that New START interferes with missile defense, Lt. General O'Reilly testified that "the New START Treaty actually reduces previous START treaty's constraints on developing missile defense programs in several areas."

...

I'm now noticing that not a single person posting negatively here has produced a single fact backing up their remarks. Nothing. Just say no.

 

[Trajan]

Failing to ratify New START has real consequences - TheHill.com

...

The Secretary of Defense has written that New START has the "unanimous support" of the US military. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Admiral Mullen, testified in support of the treaty, as did the Director of the US Missile Defense Agency, Lt. Gen Patrick O'Reilly. The Commander of US nuclear forces (STRATCOM), General Kevin Chilton advised the Senate to ratify New START. He was joined by seven of the last eight commanders of STRATCOM who jointly wrote the Senate urging ratification.

...

Despite all of this, there are some in Washington who would urge the Senate to flatly ignore America's military and, in direct contradiction to their advice, postpone consideration of New START until some unspecified time in the future. But those who make this argument have failed to take responsibility for the likely consequences of that course of action, just as they typically fail to acknowledge that their recommendation enjoys no support at the Pentagon.

...

First, it means that the US ability to conduct on-site inspections will continue to be suspended...

...
And contrary to the erroneous claim that New START interferes with missile defense, Lt. General O'Reilly testified that "the New START Treaty actually reduces previous START treaty's constraints on developing missile defense programs in several areas."

...

I'm now noticing that not a single person posting negatively here has produced a single fact backing up their remarks. Nothing. Just say no.

and you have offered.............. what exactly?

 

[MaggieMae]

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

I don't know but I do know that the adjournment they took a coupe of months ago was the earliest since LBJ...does that count?

At least the 108th through 111th Congress worked four and a half days a week instead of two and a half, as it was the habit of the Republican Congress to begin work on Tuesdays, and adjourn on Thursday afternoons for the weekend.

 

[MaggieMae]

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

because what you call equal really isn't, its a matter of negotiation, we already gave up the land base missile shield....for what? exactly? Please show me the quid pro quo.

Take your time....


IF you had ANY idea of how the counts and classifications are made, what is deemed strategic or is a launch vehicle how they calculated bombers, submarine or land based rockets etc. you know, the fine points you would know that what Russian says is equal, in fact isn't and the cost (and this is an old story) and, any kind of 'win' is paramount to/for this admin. not deterrence or negotiating a hard bargain.

This a negotiation, just because obama has a Nobel prize to live up to means squat to me. What is the rush?

NATO agrees to build missile defense shield | Reuters

 

[MaggieMae]

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

because what you call equal really isn't, its a matter of negotiation, we already gave up the land base missile shield....for what? exactly? Please show me the quid pro quo.

Take your time....


IF you had ANY idea of how the counts and classifications are made, what is deemed strategic or is a launch vehicle how they calculated bombers, submarine or land based rockets etc. you know, the fine points you would know that what Russian says is equal, in fact isn't and the cost (and this is an old story) any kind of 'win' is paramount to/for this admin. not deterrence or negotiating a hard bargain.

This a negotiation, just because obama has a Nobel prize to live up to means squat to me. What is the rush?

The same reason we rushed Obowmaocare, we can read it after it's passed. Not to worry.

You can read it now, genius.