Why are the Republicans stopping START??

[Care4all]

Who cares what Obama wants?

IF it is in the BEST INTEREST of our Nation, why NOT take care of it now?

In this instance, I believe this is just political posturing by the Repubs...

to an extent that is true, as always. Are you sure its in our best interests?

I'm pretty certain it is in the best interest of our Nation and the world, but as with anything, things can turn out, NOT the way we have planned.

I think waiting shows weakness in our UNITED States of America, and I think waiting is ridiculous, the new congress have NOT gone through all of the hearings as the people in Congress now have....THEY are the ones that should be voting on this imho.....not the newbies that have not had one iota of information on it....it could take another year for them to become up to date on the topic, and we should not put it off that long.

 

[JBeukema]

It's not Nihilism to disagree with a President or his Party.

The Republicans should try and stop this President and Democrats. I expect nothing less of them.

"Disagreement" implies a certain level of philosophical grounding and content familiarity that you don't seem to have. Rather this process seems to be more like a football game to you.

And I think that's why some are (falsely, I think) seeing racism as being such a prime motivator: this concept of disagreement ultimately being based on nothing is still somewhat alien. Opposing a 17-page treaty because 7 or 8 months isn't enough time to review it (despite the fact that it has been reviewed and endorsed by experts and the relevant Senate committee, whose membership already includes almost 20% of the Senate) might strike a casual observer as being a bizarre argument. Same with arguing against a health care bill based on page count and little factual discussion of the actual content of those pages. It's all become process and cosmetics instead of substance.

And I can see how someone would find that very hard to believe and try to identify some ulterior motive (e.g. racism). But I'm starting to believe there really is just an increasing undercurrent of nihilism here. I don't know what else could account of the sheer level of absurdity we're seeing.

So you're saying the racists are a minority and most of them are just retarded partisan hacks who love the Party and think America can go **** itself?

 

[JBeukema]

Why don't the reichwingers right their own treaty and submit it?

No discussion, no debate, no caring about America, no alternative... just no... because Republicans are two years old

NO! The money's MINE! NO! No treaties! No roads! If I want a road I'll buy MINE! NO! MINE! NO! NO SOCIALISM! It's MINE! NO healthcare for you- I got MINE!

 

[Greenbeard]

the protocols has the guts of the inspections processes, section V11 part 5. I spent a hour hour reading it, I didn't see any factory inspections/surveillance, for either. [...]

now it appears we have forgone this inspection/surveillance process, my question for one, is why? And no I don't trust Putin to produce the number they say they are, we on the other had would find it infinitely harder to do so due to the oversight here as compared to his wishes over there.

You won't find any specific mention of factory inspections in the START I inspection protocol either. In fact, you'll find the language is very similar.

START I:

Each Party shall have the right to conduct baseline data inspections, data update inspections, and new facility inspections at any of the following facilities: ICBM bases (MOU Annex A); submarine bases (MOU Annex B); ICBM loading facilities; SLBM loading facilities; repair facilities for ICBMs, SLBMs, or mobile launchers of ICBMs; storage facilities for ICBMs, SLBMs, mobile launchers of ICBMs, heavy bombers, or former heavy bombers; training facilities for ICBMs, SLBMs, or heavy bombers; conversion or elimination facilities for ICBMs, SLBMs, or mobile launchers of ICBMs; test ranges; air bases for heavy bombers, except for air bases for heavy bombers equipped for nuclear armaments other than long-range nuclear ALCMs, at which are based only heavy bombers of a type from none of which a long-range nuclear ALCM has been flight-tested; and air bases for former heavy bombers. In addition, only for the inspection of weapons storage areas, each Party shall have the right to conduct baseline data inspections, data update inspections, and new facility inspections at air bases at which are based only heavy bombers of a type from none of which a long-range nuclear ALCM has been flight-tested.​

New START:

Each Party shall have the right to conduct Type Two inspections at the facilities, and for the purposes, listed in this paragraph:

(a) At ICBM loading facilities; SLBM loading facilities; storage facilities for ICBMs, SLBMs, and mobile launchers of ICBMs; repair facilities for ICBMs, SLBMs, and mobile launchers of ICBMs; test ranges; and training facilities, in order to confirm the accuracy of declared technical characteristics and declared data, specified for such facilities, on the number and types of non-deployed ICBMs and non-deployed SLBMs, first stages of ICBMs and SLBMs, and nondeployed launchers of ICBMs.
(b) At formerly declared facilities, which are provided for in Part Two of this Protocol and were subject to inspection prior to their elimination, in order to confirm that such facilities are not being used for purposes inconsistent with the Treaty. If heavy bombers converted for non-nuclear armaments are based at formerly declared facilities, inspections shall be conducted in accordance with Part Nine of this Protocol in order to confirm that such heavy bombers remain incapable of employing nuclear armaments.
(c) At ICBM bases for silo launchers of ICBMs, in order to confirm that silo launchers of ICBMs have been eliminated in accordance with Part Three of this Protocol. During such inspections, no other items and no other portions of such ICBM bases shall be subject to inspection.
(d) At submarine bases, in order to confirm that SLBM launchers installed on ballistic missile submarines have been converted in accordance with Part Three of this Protocol. During such inspections, no other items and no other portions of such submarine bases shall be subject to inspection.
(e) At conversion or elimination facilities for ICBMs, SLBMS, or mobile launchers of ICBMs, in order to confirm that solid-fueled ICBMs, solid-fueled SLBMs, or mobile launchers of ICBMs have been eliminated in accordance with Part Three of this Protocol.
(f) At conversion or elimination facilities for heavy bombers, in order to confirm that heavy bombers equipped for nuclear armaments have been converted in accordance with Part Three of this Protocol.
(g) At storage facilities for heavy bombers, in order to confirm the accuracy of declared data, specified for such facilities, on the number and types of deployed and nondeployed heavy bombers and on the number of nuclear armaments located on such heavy bombers, in accordance with Part Nine of this Protocol.​

What is it you feel is being lost?

 

[Trajan]

the protocols has the guts of the inspections processes, section V11 part 5. I spent a hour hour reading it, I didn't see any factory inspections/surveillance, for either. [...]

now it appears we have forgone this inspection/surveillance process, my question for one, is why? And no I don't trust Putin to produce the number they say they are, we on the other had would find it infinitely harder to do so due to the oversight here as compared to his wishes over there.

You won't find any specific mention of factory inspections in the START I inspection protocol either. In fact, you'll find the language is very similar.

START I:

Each Party shall have the right to conduct baseline data inspections, data update inspections, and new facility inspections at any of the following facilities: ICBM bases (MOU Annex A); submarine bases (MOU Annex B); ICBM loading facilities; SLBM loading facilities; repair facilities for ICBMs, SLBMs, or mobile launchers of ICBMs; storage facilities for ICBMs, SLBMs, mobile launchers of ICBMs, heavy bombers, or former heavy bombers; training facilities for ICBMs, SLBMs, or heavy bombers; conversion or elimination facilities for ICBMs, SLBMs, or mobile launchers of ICBMs; test ranges; air bases for heavy bombers, except for air bases for heavy bombers equipped for nuclear armaments other than long-range nuclear ALCMs, at which are based only heavy bombers of a type from none of which a long-range nuclear ALCM has been flight-tested; and air bases for former heavy bombers. In addition, only for the inspection of weapons storage areas, each Party shall have the right to conduct baseline data inspections, data update inspections, and new facility inspections at air bases at which are based only heavy bombers of a type from none of which a long-range nuclear ALCM has been flight-tested.​

New START:

Each Party shall have the right to conduct Type Two inspections at the facilities, and for the purposes, listed in this paragraph:

(a) At ICBM loading facilities; SLBM loading facilities; storage facilities for ICBMs, SLBMs, and mobile launchers of ICBMs; repair facilities for ICBMs, SLBMs, and mobile launchers of ICBMs; test ranges; and training facilities, in order to confirm the accuracy of declared technical characteristics and declared data, specified for such facilities, on the number and types of non-deployed ICBMs and non-deployed SLBMs, first stages of ICBMs and SLBMs, and nondeployed launchers of ICBMs.
(b) At formerly declared facilities, which are provided for in Part Two of this Protocol and were subject to inspection prior to their elimination, in order to confirm that such facilities are not being used for purposes inconsistent with the Treaty. If heavy bombers converted for non-nuclear armaments are based at formerly declared facilities, inspections shall be conducted in accordance with Part Nine of this Protocol in order to confirm that such heavy bombers remain incapable of employing nuclear armaments.
(c) At ICBM bases for silo launchers of ICBMs, in order to confirm that silo launchers of ICBMs have been eliminated in accordance with Part Three of this Protocol. During such inspections, no other items and no other portions of such ICBM bases shall be subject to inspection.
(d) At submarine bases, in order to confirm that SLBM launchers installed on ballistic missile submarines have been converted in accordance with Part Three of this Protocol. During such inspections, no other items and no other portions of such submarine bases shall be subject to inspection.
(e) At conversion or elimination facilities for ICBMs, SLBMS, or mobile launchers of ICBMs, in order to confirm that solid-fueled ICBMs, solid-fueled SLBMs, or mobile launchers of ICBMs have been eliminated in accordance with Part Three of this Protocol.
(f) At conversion or elimination facilities for heavy bombers, in order to confirm that heavy bombers equipped for nuclear armaments have been converted in accordance with Part Three of this Protocol.
(g) At storage facilities for heavy bombers, in order to confirm the accuracy of declared data, specified for such facilities, on the number and types of deployed and nondeployed heavy bombers and on the number of nuclear armaments located on such heavy bombers, in accordance with Part Nine of this Protocol.​

What is it you feel is being lost?

obviously not lost if the start 1 complete. where is the inspection process laid out for the manufacturing or assembly plants of the platforms...?

 

[LibocalypseNow]

So the President says this Treaty is perfect and we're all just supposed to shut up and accept that like good little sheep? I have no confidence in the Democrats at this point. I don't know why anyone would trust them? I see no reason to ram this through. I would like to see them take this up when the new Congress takes over. The Lameduckers have to go. End of story.

 

[The T]

"We begin bombing in five minutes"~ Ronald Reagan, August 11, 1984

 

[kiwiman127]

Well it seems that the opinions of the top foreign policy experts from the past four adminstrations, the top military brass, the leaders of NATO and the American people really don't matter to the partisan amateurs regarding START.
I am almost positive that if God spoke to each and everyone of those who oppose START and told them God supports it, they would still say no.

 

[Care4all]

According to the Bible, God put Obama in power....

True story!

He put Bush in power as well!

Another true story!

 

[LibocalypseNow]

No "Rubber Stamps" or "Blank Checks." Remember that stuff? Now the Democrats are suddenly singing a different tune on that stuff huh? I see no reason why the Republicans should Rubber Stamp this Treaty. They should all take their time reading and fully comprehending this Treaty before voting on it. That's what our Congress is supposed to do. I guess a lot of people have forgotten that. No Rubber Stamps. I would think the Democrats would support the Republicans on this one. Hmm?

 

[elvis]

According to the Bible, God put Obama in power....

True story!

He put Bush in power as well!

Another true story!

He also put Hitler and Stalin in power.

 

[Care4all]

According to the Bible, God put Obama in power....

True story!

He put Bush in power as well!

Another true story!

He also put Hitler and Stalin in power.

yep, I was gonna put that in parentheses as well!

I can't begin to explain this, or what the Bible says on this...it is something that is beyond my comprehension and I can only take it on Faith alone, without understanding.

 

[elvis]

According to the Bible, God put Obama in power....

True story!

He put Bush in power as well!

Another true story!

He also put Hitler and Stalin in power.

yep, I was gonna put that in parentheses as well!

I can't begin to explain this, or what the Bible says on this...it is something that is beyond my comprehension and I can only take it on Faith alone, without understanding.

it's not beyond your understanding. it's just difficult to put into words.

 

[Flopper]

"Nihilism" lol! Yea that's pretty weak. Yup it's Nihilism for our Congress to actually do its job and thoroughly read & understand things before they vote on them. Oh the humanity. Personally i don't feel these Lameduckers should be passing this Treaty. They've done enough damage in my opinion. This can wait. Nothing to see here. There's no "Crisis."

The text has been available since April. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted on a bipartisan basis to endorse ratification in September. A host of subject experts have not only endorsed ratification but I'm certain are also available for a chat with any Senator who does the arduous work of reading the 17 sparsely-spaced pages of the treaty (although apparently this first step takes longer than 7 months).

You call supporters "Goose Stepping Wingnuts" and imply that this treaty will result in "damage" and yet I get the sense you're entirely unfamiliar with it and have chosen instead to rely entirely on partisan cues to figure out what you think about this issue. That's not nihilism per se, that's just silliness. It's the people you follow that are nihilists; at this point they believe in nothing, relying instead on some odd base urge to reflexively oppose anything the President might favor.

Here is the link to the Start II treaty text. It's not long and fairly easy to understand. This treaty has been sitting around for years in Congress. It has gone through numerous committees approved by the DOD, current and past and secretaries, both Republicans and Democrats. The treaty will be approve probably with no changes. The Republican delay is just politics as usually.

START II: Treaty Text

START II: Treaty Text

 

[Flopper]

Who cares what Obama wants?

IF it is in the BEST INTEREST of our Nation, why NOT take care of it now?

In this instance, I believe this is just political posturing by the Repubs...

to an extent that is true, as always. Are you sure its in our best interests?

Unless you are have been involved in the negotiations and have detail knowledge of the processes you can not know what is best for the country. You really need to listen to the authorities, past and present secretaries of state, the DOD, and others who have been working with the process for 20 years. Armchair quarterbacking just doesn't work. All treaties have have pros and cons for both sides since it is a mutual negotiated agreement.

 

[The T]

IF it is in the BEST INTEREST of our Nation, why NOT take care of it now?

In this instance, I believe this is just political posturing by the Repubs...

to an extent that is true, as always. Are you sure its in our best interests?

Unless you are have been involved in the negotiations and have detail knowledge of the processes you can not know what is best for the country. You really need to listen to the authorities, past and present secretaries of state, the DOD, and others who have been working with the process for 20 years. Armchair quarterbacking just doesn't work. All treaties have have pros and cons for both sides since it is a mutual negotiated agreement.

In effect *YOU* are telling that poster that his government has to do what's best for the protection of he, his family, and fellow citizens is none of his business?

REALLY?

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Lots of Treaties have been supported and ratified by so-called "Experts" that have been terrible for this Nation. Why is it so hard for some to consider the possibility this Treaty isn't so great for our Nation? It really is a Sheeple mentality. The Republicans are right to take their time and fully comprehend the ramifications of ratifying this Treaty. The more questions,the better in my opinion.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

"Nihilism" lol! Yea that's pretty weak. Yup it's Nihilism for our Congress to actually do its job and thoroughly read & understand things before they vote on them. Oh the humanity. Personally i don't feel these Lameduckers should be passing this Treaty. They've done enough damage in my opinion. This can wait. Nothing to see here. There's no "Crisis."

The text has been available since April. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted on a bipartisan basis to endorse ratification in September. A host of subject experts have not only endorsed ratification but I'm certain are also available for a chat with any Senator who does the arduous work of reading the 17 sparsely-spaced pages of the treaty (although apparently this first step takes longer than 7 months).

You call supporters "Goose Stepping Wingnuts" and imply that this treaty will result in "damage" and yet I get the sense you're entirely unfamiliar with it and have chosen instead to rely entirely on partisan cues to figure out what you think about this issue. That's not nihilism per se, that's just silliness. It's the people you follow that are nihilists; at this point they believe in nothing, relying instead on some odd base urge to reflexively oppose anything the President might favor.

Why is is suddenly so important that it cannot wait until next year when Obama chose to push it to the back burner in order to concentrate on other things earlier?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Have you been living under a rock since the election?

The Republican base has been coming out of the woodwork. They can't stand the thought of a black man in the white [man's] house being anything but a total failure

Just look at the neonazis meeting up at the teabagger rallies, the racist signs everywhere, or the emails they send out

that's why they oppose their own legislation as soon as the ****** in the white [man's] house says he likes it

so me/we/they are all racist. Any opposition is based on race.

So it follows, if I don't see it that way, I am a racist too? hummmm.

I told you he projects.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

"Nihilism" lol! Yea that's pretty weak. Yup it's Nihilism for our Congress to actually do its job and thoroughly read & understand things before they vote on them. Oh the humanity. Personally i don't feel these Lameduckers should be passing this Treaty. They've done enough damage in my opinion. This can wait. Nothing to see here. There's no "Crisis."

The text has been available since April. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted on a bipartisan basis to endorse ratification in September. A host of subject experts have not only endorsed ratification but I'm certain are also available for a chat with any Senator who does the arduous work of reading the 17 sparsely-spaced pages of the treaty (although apparently this first step takes longer than 7 months).

You call supporters "Goose Stepping Wingnuts" and imply that this treaty will result in "damage" and yet I get the sense you're entirely unfamiliar with it and have chosen instead to rely entirely on partisan cues to figure out what you think about this issue. That's not nihilism per se, that's just silliness. It's the people you follow that are nihilists; at this point they believe in nothing, relying instead on some odd base urge to reflexively oppose anything the President might favor.

Why is is suddenly so important that it cannot wait until next year when Obama chose to push it to the back burner in order to concentrate on other things earlier?

Another "Crisis" i'm sure. Seriously,what's the hurry on this thing? Civilization is going to collapse if it's not ratified immediately? The fact they're pushing this so hard makes me even more skeptical. I think the World will go on just fine if this Treaty is voted on four or five weeks from now. I just don't understand all the Democrat hysteria over this.