MORE McConnell SANITY: He's voting against START

[(R)IGHTeous 1]

This is a bad, flawed, pro-Russian "treaty". Cmon, IT'S RUSSIA PEOPLE. They never liked us, probably never will, can't contain their own nukes, and will gladly sell them, and whatever other arms to whomever cuz they're broke.

McConnell to vote against treaty with Russians

WASHINGTON – The Senate's Republican leader said Sunday he would oppose a nuclear arms treaty with Russia, damaging prospects for President Barack Obama's foreign policy priority in the final days of the postelection Congress. Top Democrats still expressed confidence the Senate would ratify the accord by year's end.

McConnell to vote against treaty with Russians - Yahoo! News

 

[The T]

Good. This treaty is a piece of crap and will neuter the United States from it's ability to defend it's citizens.

 

[uscitizen]

Mitch would vote against Santa Claus if Obama was for Santa.
He is a party hack nothing more.

The right wingers have to keep the fear flowing.

 

[(R)IGHTeous 1]

Mitch would vote against Santa Claus if Obama was for Santa.
He is a party hack nothing more.

The right wingers have to keep the fear flowing.

Like Russia, the brutal, totalitarian state you apparently seem to be siding with here does?

 

[uscitizen]

Mitch would vote against Santa Claus if Obama was for Santa.
He is a party hack nothing more.

The right wingers have to keep the fear flowing.

Like Russia, the brutal, totalitarian state you apparently seem to be siding with here does?

Yep the right wingers keep the fear flowing just like totalitarian states do.

Glad you agree with me.

 

[uscitizen]

How many nukes do we need anyway? Enough to decimate the entire earth?

 

[(R)IGHTeous 1]

Mitch would vote against Santa Claus if Obama was for Santa.
He is a party hack nothing more.

The right wingers have to keep the fear flowing.

Like Russia, the brutal, totalitarian state you apparently seem to be siding with here does?

Yep the right wingers keep the fear flowing just like totalitarian states do.

Glad you agree with me.

The world is indeed a scary place, always better safer than sorry. But by all means, keep living in the bubbles and gumdrops, wacko commie utopia, along with the other 20% of you.

The lucid ones like us will look after America, don't WORRY......

 

[Sallow]

How many nukes do we need anyway? Enough to decimate the entire earth?

100 blown up at the same time would probably begin a collapse in the biosphere. And you wouldn't even need to launch them. Currently the US has like 5000 of them...I think.

 

[uscitizen]

Also the more nukes that are around the more likely that one will fall into terrorist hands.

 

[Modbert]

It's disappointing to see how some people are still acting as if the Cold War is still going on.

Here in reality, however:

The Third Wave of Russian De-Stalinization - By Masha Lipman | Foreign Policy

"The Katyn crime was committed on direct order by Stalin and other Soviet leaders." This line, from a formal statement issued by the Russian parliament on Nov. 26, marks an important breakthrough. The execution in 1940 of about 22,000 Poles by the Soviet security police may be a well-recorded and broadly known historical fact, but it is the first time the Duma officially recognized that Stalin and his government were guilty of the massacre. And Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has now chimed in as well, telling Polish media before a visit to Warsaw this month that "Stalin and his henchmen bear responsibility for this crime."

These two official statements are the most recent examples of a surprising shift by the Russian government: Under Vladimir Putin, the Kremlin's stance on Stalinism was evasive at best, leading to a creeping restoration of Stalin's reputation in the early 2000s. But over the last year the Russian government has embarked on a new round of anti-Stalin rhetoric and initiatives, openly admitting some of the "forgotten" Soviet crimes revealed earlier under Mikhail Gorbachev and Boris Yeltsin.

What seems to drive the current de-Stalinization campaign is first and foremost Russia's new rapprochement with the West, which is pushing Russia for some recognition of the crimes of Soviet totalitarianism. But this doesn't necessarily mean the foreign-policy shift will be accompanied by political liberalization at home; in some ways, the current political order inside Russia is not too dissimilar from that of the Stalinist regime. Russia, whether there's a Stalin cult or not, is still being ruled under the centuries-long tradition that gives its top leaders a monopoly on decision-making, enshrines the state's dominance over the society, and relies on state security police as the main instrument of governance.

Nevertheless, this new anti-Stalin campaign is real, and has been on the rise since late 2009, when on Oct. 30 -- the day Russians traditionally acknowledge the victims of Soviet repression -- Medvedev posted a videoblog condemning "Stalin's crimes" in no uncertain terms and lamenting scarce public knowledge about the terror that he referred to as "one of the greatest tragedies in the history of Russia."

 

[Annie]

How many nukes do we need anyway? Enough to decimate the entire earth?

Why do you think this is a 'good treaty'? What do you see wrong with these concerns?

12 Flaws of New START Arms Control Treaty | The Heritage Foundation

 

[NYcarbineer]

The defense lobby doesn't want any treaty that might enable us to reduce defense spending too much,

and they especially don't like anything that might discourage an eventual multi-trillion dollar arms race in the missile-defense area.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Oh, and btw, I thought Reagan won the Cold War.

Why are we negotiating as equals with someone that Reagan supposedly DEFEATED?

Maybe all you Reaganoids should shelve that sort of talk when you talk about Reagan's accomplishments.

 

[Modbert]

Why do you think this is a 'good treaty'? What do you see wrong with these concerns?

12 Flaws of New START Arms Control Treaty | The Heritage Foundation

Ah yes, The Heritage Foundation, just the people to trust on Foreign Policy. The same people who helped to make and advocate the Reagan Doctrine and also supporting President George W. Bush's foreign policy. Tell us why we should care what a think tank of Neocons believe?

 

[Sarah G]

That's ok, maybe the good Repubs will come forward again to do the right thing.

 

[(R)IGHTeous 1]

That's ok, maybe the good Repubs will come forward again to do the right thing.

This aint bout U.S. homo patriots like me sweetie, this is a treaty with a shady, deceptive, brutal, totalitarian, "federation" who would like nothing more than to see us fall so they can rise again.....

 

[Annie]

Why do you think this is a 'good treaty'? What do you see wrong with these concerns?

12 Flaws of New START Arms Control Treaty | The Heritage Foundation

Ah yes, The Heritage Foundation, just the people to trust on Foreign Policy. The same people who helped to make and advocate the Reagan Doctrine and also supporting President George W. Bush's foreign policy. Tell us why we should care what a think tank of Neocons believe?

Being the educated chap you are, your read it though and your disagreements are where?

 

[The T]

Oh, and btw, I thought Reagan won the Cold War.

Why are we negotiating as equals with someone that Reagan supposedly DEFEATED?

Maybe all you Reaganoids should shelve that sort of talk when you talk about Reagan's accomplishments.

Because too many were quick to spend the Cold War equity WON by Reagan...and we've been bit in the ass for it ever since regarding Military readiness...

 

[NYcarbineer]

Oh, and btw, I thought Reagan won the Cold War.

Why are we negotiating as equals with someone that Reagan supposedly DEFEATED?

Maybe all you Reaganoids should shelve that sort of talk when you talk about Reagan's accomplishments.

Because too many were quick to spend the Cold War equity WON by Reagan...and we've been bit in the ass for it ever since regarding Military readiness...

What the fuck does that even mean? We won the Cold war? Who lost? Who was defeated? Who surrendered? Whose armies were disbanded? Whose weapons were lost? Whose capacity to make war was significantly diminished?

Won the Cold War...lol...

 

[Claudette]

Personally I don't see anything wrong with any Congressman wanting to really look at this treaty.

After all the present Congress could have brought this up for approval in Sept or Oct but didn't because of the Nov election. NOW all of a sudden its a life or death issue?? Ain"t buyin it.

I also think the new Congress should be handling this not the lame duck congress. It won't make a bit of difference if it approved on Dec 21 of Jan 7th or whenever.

I see nothing wrong with taking a closer look at it.