Why are the Republicans stopping START??

[LibocalypseNow]

Until i'm convinced our politicians in Congress have thoroughly read and comprehended this Treaty,i cannot support ratifying it. What's the rush? This is pretty important no? I think this can wait till January. I just don't think the World is going to end if they don't jam this thing through immediately. This is no "Crisis."

 

[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?

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.

Please tell me how it is not, since the Democrats managed to pass it without a single Republican Senator voting for it. Then go back through history and list all the bills that passed without any votes from the opposition part in the Senate.

 

[L.K.Eder]

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.

yeah, but there was a high-rise in shanghai that burned like a ******* torch recently!

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Wasn't that the main goal of the Democrats and Bush? Or did the Democrats actively work to get him reelected?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

yeah, but there was a high-rise in shanghai that burned like a ******* torch recently!

You are the one claiming the two treaties are linked, not me.

 

[kiwiman127]

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.

Thanks for making my point about bias. Are you going to slam everyone of the highly regarded experts?

Where's your quote from somebody who actually knows what they are talking about?

 

[L.K.Eder]

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.

yeah, but there was a high-rise in shanghai that burned like a ******* torch recently!

You are the one claiming the two treaties are linked, not me.

hey, read the thread, read the treaty. use your brain.
and don't try your bullshit with me, it is not working.

maybe you really are handicapped. tough luck.

 

[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.

Wasn't that the main goal of the Democrats and Bush? Or did the Democrats actively work to get him reelected?

Where did the dems ever say their top priority was to make Bush a one termer?

They said things like ending the war or stopping the deaths of Americans for lies.

 

[kiwiman127]

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.

While I'd like to see Obama as a one term President, I'd like to see Congress actually do something other than playing political games. This business with START is clearlly a political game by the GOP. Kyle is basically clueless in comparison to the crowd who supports the treaty,,it's not even close.
And then there's the military,,,,,,!
"Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen also weighed in Wednesday, stating that the U.S. military leadership supports the treaty's ratification. "I hope we can do that as rapidly as possible," he said."

Seventy-three percent of Americans believe the Senate should ratify the treaty, according to a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Tuesday. Twenty-three percent are opposed to its approval.
Obama pushes arms treaty approval - CNN.com

So here we are, this nation's top foreign policies experts want the treaty passed quickly, the military leadership wants START passed quickly and a huge majority of the people want it passed quickly.

I predict that if the GOP keeps up these childish games, they'll end up on the short end of the stick come 2012. A CNN poll shows that 73% of American support START, whatever happened to "We the People"? It's more like "We the GOP"!

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Kyle has it right. This is not something a Lameduck Congress should be deciding. They should take their time with this. There is no rush. This is not a "Crisis." I'm sure the Democrats will be spewing their "Crisis" rhetoric on this any day now but it really isn't. The World will go on just fine if this Treaty isn't jammed through immediately. Trust me.

 

[kiwiman127]

Kyle has it right. This is not something a Lameduck Congress should be deciding. They should take their time with this. There is no rush. This is not a "Crisis." I'm sure the Democrats will be spewing their "Crisis" rhetoric on this any day now but it really isn't. The World will go on just fine if this Treaty isn't jammed through immediately. Trust me.

What a surprise response!
Kyle is right! This nations top experts and the military brass are wrong?
Do you realise exactly how stupid that appears? (Answer,,,NO!)

 

[L.K.Eder]

Kyle has it right. This is not something a Lameduck Congress should be deciding. They should take their time with this. There is no rush. This is not a "Crisis." I'm sure the Democrats will be spewing their "Crisis" rhetoric on this any day now but it really isn't. The World will go on just fine if this Treaty isn't jammed through immediately. Trust me.

What a surprise response!
Kyle is right! This nations top experts and the military brass are wrong?
Do you realise exactly how stupid that appears? (Answer,,,NO!)

here is a tip: don't address this poster. he will just recycle his paragraph and repeat it 10 times.

it is safe to say that no compelling reason for the delay has been presented, neither by the senate Rs, nor by the posters here. but that was never a probable outcome of this thread.


we need more time... lol

 

[kiwiman127]

Kyle has it right. This is not something a Lameduck Congress should be deciding. They should take their time with this. There is no rush. This is not a "Crisis." I'm sure the Democrats will be spewing their "Crisis" rhetoric on this any day now but it really isn't. The World will go on just fine if this Treaty isn't jammed through immediately. Trust me.

What a surprise response!
Kyle is right! This nations top experts and the military brass are wrong?
Do you realise exactly how stupid that appears? (Answer,,,NO!)

here is a tip: don't address this poster. he will just recycle his paragraph and repeat it 10 times.

it is safe to say that no compelling reason for the delay has been presented, neither by the senate Rs, nor by the posters here. but that was never a probable outcome of this thread.


we need more time... lol

No doubt, this is like talking to a 5th grader,,wait I think 5th graders have more of an openmind!

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Kyle has it right. This is not something a Lameduck Congress should be deciding. They should take their time with this. There is no rush. This is not a "Crisis." I'm sure the Democrats will be spewing their "Crisis" rhetoric on this any day now but it really isn't. The World will go on just fine if this Treaty isn't jammed through immediately. Trust me.

What a surprise response!
Kyle is right! This nations top experts and the military brass are wrong?
Do you realise exactly how stupid that appears? (Answer,,,NO!)

Stupid describes this Dem-Led Worst Congress in History perfectly. They just want to jam another thing through that they themselves haven't even read. Unfortunately that's par for the course for them. I'm sure they'll be spinning that this is another "Crisis" but i assure you it's not. This Treaty needs to be studied and scrutinized more before ratification. I actually still expect our politicians to take their time and read Legislation before voting on it. I know that seems crazy considering what the Democrats have done to our Congress,but it is how i feel. Why rush this? Just because the President says it's great,doesn't mean it's true. They should go slow on this one.

 

[kiwiman127]

Kyle has it right. This is not something a Lameduck Congress should be deciding. They should take their time with this. There is no rush. This is not a "Crisis." I'm sure the Democrats will be spewing their "Crisis" rhetoric on this any day now but it really isn't. The World will go on just fine if this Treaty isn't jammed through immediately. Trust me.

What a surprise response!
Kyle is right! This nations top experts and the military brass are wrong?
Do you realise exactly how stupid that appears? (Answer,,,NO!)

Stupid describes this Dem-Led Worst Congress in History perfectly. They just want to jam another thing through that they themselves haven't even read. Unfortunately that's par for the course for them. I'm sure they'll be spinning that this is another "Crisis" but i assure you it's not. This Treaty needs to be studied and scrutinized more before ratification. I actually still expect our politicians to take their time and read Legislation before voting on it. I know that seems crazy considering what the Democrats have done to our Congress,but it is how i feel. Why rush this? Just because the President says it's great,doesn't mean it's true. They should go slow on this one.

So, it's because Obama says it's right? Well another surprise!
Well if that isn't a great reason to be against it,,,,,,well it isn't.
As shown to you and your buds,,,it's NOT just Obama! As I pointed out the top experts (including those from the other side of the aisle) and the military brass agree with Obama.
BUT because It's a Obama thing,,,well that wipes out every top expert and the military? Man, that is so figgen lame and pathetic, it's unbelievable.
There's a crisis alright,,,, between your ears.

 

[JamesMorrison]

First, this treaty does the exact opposite of what successive administrations from Reagan onward insisted upon: No linkage between U.S. missile defense and nuclear arsenals. They are to be considered separately. This is in the U.S.'s interest simply because, operationally speaking, the U.S. actually has this defensive capability and Russia does not. Secondly, most of this U.S. defensive capability does not even involve nuclear warheads.

Charles Krauthammer made a good point about a year or so ago when Obama started pushing this before he got side tracked with his Obamacare agenda and his effort to demonize an Arizona forced to do something about the immigration debacle on its border with Mexico. He said:

"Unfortunately for the United States, the country Obama represents, the prospective treaty is useless at best, detrimental at worst.

Useless because the level of offensive nuclear weaponry, the subject of the U.S.-Russia “Joint Understanding,” is an irrelevance. We could today terminate all such negotiations, invite the Russians to build as many warheads as they want, and profitably watch them spend themselves into penury, as did their Soviet predecessors, stockpiling weapons that do nothing more than, as Churchill put it, make the rubble bounce
"

His full thoughts are here: RealClearPolitics - Our Foreign Policy Neophyte

The only concern we should have regards a U.S. ability to monitor Russia's weaponized nuclear material which, according to many authorities, this treaty is far from comprehensively addressing. To Obama there are only two concerns that matter here:

1. The appearance of 'accomplishment' to appease those already singing in his choir.

2. The continuation of his appeasement agenda that, this time, focuses on the Russians in the hope that they will not participate in mischief regarding winter shutoff of gas to former Eastern European satellites or the mistaken belief that they will, somehow, force Iran to cooperate RE its nuke program.

As to the reason for the haste to push this treaty through look no further than a presently lame duck Senate and compare the increase in difficulty that will be manifest in trying to pass this pig after 3 Jan 2011.

Expect Obama and his minions to blame and demonize the GOP on this. There's absolutely no compelling reason not to have a debate about this treaty before we even think about ratifying it.

For those interested in a more detailed treatment see a Bolton and Yoo's op-ed here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/10/opinion/10bolton.html?_r=2&ref=opinion

JM

 

[L.K.Eder]

First, this treaty does the exact opposite of what successive administrations from Reagan onward insisted upon: No linkage between U.S. missile defense and nuclear arsenals. They are to be considered separately. This is in the U.S.'s interest simply because, operationally speaking, the U.S. actually has this defensive capability and Russia does not. Secondly, most of this U.S. defensive capability does not even involve nuclear warheads.

Charles Krauthammer made a good point about a year or so ago when Obama started pushing this before he got side tracked with his Obamacare agenda and his effort to demonize an Arizona forced to do something about the immigration debacle on its border with Mexico. He said:

"Unfortunately for the United States, the country Obama represents, the prospective treaty is useless at best, detrimental at worst.

Useless because the level of offensive nuclear weaponry, the subject of the U.S.-Russia “Joint Understanding,” is an irrelevance. We could today terminate all such negotiations, invite the Russians to build as many warheads as they want, and profitably watch them spend themselves into penury, as did their Soviet predecessors, stockpiling weapons that do nothing more than, as Churchill put it, make the rubble bounce
"

His full thoughts are here: RealClearPolitics - Our Foreign Policy Neophyte

The only concern we should have regards a U.S. ability to monitor Russia's weaponized nuclear material which, according to many authorities, this treaty is far from comprehensively addressing. To Obama there are only two concerns that matter here:

1. The appearance of 'accomplishment' to appease those already singing in his choir.

2. The continuation of his appeasement agenda that, this time, focuses on the Russians in the hope that they will not participate in mischief regarding winter shutoff of gas to former Eastern European satellites or the mistaken belief that they will, somehow, force Iran to cooperate RE its nuke program.

As to the reason for the haste to push this treaty through look no further than a presently lame duck Senate and compare the increase in difficulty that will be manifest in trying to pass this pig after 3 Jan 2011.

Expect Obama and his minions to blame and demonize the GOP on this. There's absolutely no compelling reason not to have a debate about this treaty before we even think about ratifying it.

For those interested in a more detailed treatment see a Bolton and Yoo's op-ed here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/10/opinion/10bolton.html?_r=2&ref=opinion

JM

krauthammer, bolton and yoo.

i will read it, but judging on my confirmation bias, i will find them to be full of neocon shit.

yoo should be in jail, btw.


EDIT: read it. hehe. you have to sign in. NYT is a leftwingnut paper, "of course" (R. Ailes).
it was a whole lot of opinion by partisans, they don't shift the balance, considering that the military and R and D experts don't see this huge problem with the missile defense, but a problem in NOT signing.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Why are so many so anxious to see things jammed through before their Congress members have even read the Legislation or Treaty? Why do we have a Congress? Just jam it through because the President says to? That's not how our Government is supposed to work. I seriously doubt Pelosi & Reid have read and comprehended this Treaty yet they're attempting to jam it through anyway. Why are they in such a rush? We have a Congress for a reason. All Congress members should be required to read & comprehend this entire Treaty before voting on it. It shouldn't just get rammed through because the President says to. Congress needs to start doing its job again.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Btw,weren't the Russians just busted for operating a major Spy-Ring here? So we're just supposed to ignore that and pretend it didn't happen? It's even more important for our Congress members to fully read & comprehend this Treaty before voting. Congress needs to do its job. They have to stop being so lazy. This thing should be delayed. No Rubber Stamp.

 

[Trajan]

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?

and that is not binding btw either ......