GOP Prefers Politics Over National security

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

DUUUUUUUUDES do you have ANY idea at all about how many thermonuclear weapons it takes to destroy life as we have known it for the last 10000 years.

When the US and the Soviet Union had 70some thousand bombs, rather than the 20,000 now (7k active), we somehow survived.

I feel pretty confident that we'll avoid nuclear extinction for the next couple months.

True.. BUT

This is indicitive of the PARTY OF NO

They are the ones who been stopping this government in its tracks.. Our negotiators are playing on a world stage and when a minority of the legislators make the country look bad to the rest of the world there are consequences. We need to have credibility with the other players in the game.
The rather bright individuals like the last 5 Republican Secretaries of State, Henry Kissinger, George Shultz, James Baker III, Lawrence Eagleburger and Colin Powell, support it. They represent a SANE Republican Party that used to be. Now the far right has elected a bunch of twat muppets that would warm the rather small cockles of the John Birch Society anal retentive sociopaths.


I can remember the League of Nations fiasco after WWI from the history classes and we had the same small like minded group of idiots who made sure we did not get that ratified either. What was the ultimate outcome of that stupidity???

[champu 1]

While it would be nice if the new START focused a little more on getting rid of nuclear bombers (because that's just a good idea in terms of cutting military spending anyway) the treaty could be a hell of a lot worse for us. A 16% reduction in submarine tubes isn't that big of a deal. There's always going to be some back and forth regarding ICBMs and SLBMs because we have more (and better) submarines and they have more (and better / more mobile) ICBM capabilities with all their road-mobile TELs.

But the win here for us is that we get to go on refining the SM-3 to our heart's content, which is something that may actually help defend us against an agressive move by DPRK or Iran.

[jclalor 12]

Quote

Gorbachev wants it passed too

Yea... the smarter heads on both sides want it passed.

[jclalor 12]

Quote

The rather bright individuals like the last 5 Republican Secretaries of State, Henry Kissinger, George Shultz, James Baker III, Lawrence Eagleburger and Colin Powell, support it. They represent a SANE Republican Party that used to be. Now the far right has elected a bunch of twat muppets that would warm the rather small cockles of the John Birch Society anal retentive sociopaths.

Even Condie Rice is for it now. But the republicans would rather hold out for tax cuts for the top 2%.

Their latest crap now is to say if they have to be in session next week it will be anti-christian, after all, it is Christmas and we all know how all of us get two weeks off at this time of year. How much more out of touch with the common person can they be? You're average person is lucky to get Christmas eve off. Poor little fucking babies.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

You're average person is lucky to get Christmas eve off. Poor little fucking babies.

WTF are so many people having trouble with your and you're in the past 24 hours? Did it become a Speaker's Corner cliche?

[jakee 1,611]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Why do you support the US being weaker?

Yes, 'weaker'. Kinda like everest getting 'shorter' when a foot of spindrift is blown off the top.

A spelling come back

atta boy

Um... no. Nothing about spelling in my post, explicit or implied.

Sometimes I really do wonder if you actually read this forum. It's like you reply to the conversation that's going on in your head rather than the one that's on the page.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[rushmc 23]

Party of no

Even the media and the Dems have given up on that lie

Funny shit

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Why do you support the US being weaker?

Yes, 'weaker'. Kinda like everest getting 'shorter' when a foot of spindrift is blown off the top.

A spelling come back

atta boy

Um... no. Nothing about spelling in my post, explicit or implied.

Sometimes I really do wonder if you actually read this forum. It's like you reply to the conversation that's going on in your head rather than the one that's on the page.

Although you do not mean it the way I am going to reply to you about but
You touched on what does happen when I post
With spelling being a dificult task for me and slow typing skills, I think faster than I can get it typed down. I use Word to type my replies many times and I try to read it over. When I am busy or distracted I will skip these steps sometimes.

Not making excuses just saying

but I also take less time with smart ass replies
Why should I?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[jakee 1,611]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Why do you support the US being weaker?

Yes, 'weaker'. Kinda like everest getting 'shorter' when a foot of spindrift is blown off the top.

A spelling come back

atta boy

Um... no. Nothing about spelling in my post, explicit or implied.

Sometimes I really do wonder if you actually read this forum. It's like you reply to the conversation that's going on in your head rather than the one that's on the page.

Although you do not mean it the way I am going to reply to you about but
You touched on what does happen when I post
With spelling being a dificult task for me and slow typing skills, I think faster than I can get it typed down. I use Word to type my replies many times and I try to read it over. When I am busy or distracted I will skip these steps sometimes.

Not making excuses just saying

but I also take less time with smart ass replies
Why should I?

How interesting. But it still has sweet fuck all to do with what I said.

Good way to avoid a point though. Atta boy, I suppose...

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Why do you support the US being weaker?

Yes, 'weaker'. Kinda like everest getting 'shorter' when a foot of spindrift is blown off the top.

A spelling come back

atta boy

Um... no. Nothing about spelling in my post, explicit or implied.

Sometimes I really do wonder if you actually read this forum. It's like you reply to the conversation that's going on in your head rather than the one that's on the page.

Although you do not mean it the way I am going to reply to you about but
You touched on what does happen when I post
With spelling being a dificult task for me and slow typing skills, I think faster than I can get it typed down. I use Word to type my replies many times and I try to read it over. When I am busy or distracted I will skip these steps sometimes.

Not making excuses just saying

but I also take less time with smart ass replies
Why should I?

How interesting. But it still has sweet fuck all to do with what I said.

Good way to avoid a point though. Atta boy, I suppose...

You are welcome

I got your point dude

By the way
If you want to have an adult conversation then start one. Otherwise, you get what you start

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

As of the moring the White House has not yet release the START treaty negociation record. Why? What is in it that we are not supposed to know? If there is classified info in it then it could be released to a Senate panel for review. That has not been done yet either.

Quote

Reagan Aide Perle: START 'Seriously Flawed'
Thursday, 16 Dec 2010 07:40 PM
NewMax

By Dan Weil and Ashley Martella

Instead of pressuring reluctant Republican senators for rapid ratification of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty with Russia, the Obama administration should just drop it, says Richard Perle, a key architect of President Ronald Reagan’s strategy to end the Cold War.

“It’s a seriously flawed treaty,” Perle, now a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, says during an exclusive interview with Newsmax.TV. “It’s certainly not the kind of treaty Ronald Reagan fought for and accomplished.”

The pact is very weak on verification, he says. “For example, our right to inspections is limited to sites the Russians declare . . . which makes a mockery of the whole idea of on-site inspections,” Perle explains. “Imagine when Iran asserts a similar right to limit inspections, or the North Koreans or others. For that reason alone, it’s a very doubtful agreement.”

lenty of time is needed to examine the treaty. “That won’t be done if they vote immediately,” he notes. “The Senate has never seen the full negotiating record on the treaty.”

That’s because the Obama administration doesn’t want a serious examination of the dispute between the United States and Russia over ballistic missile defense, Perle says.

“Russia claims that, if we build future ballistic missile defenses that impinge on what they believe to be their national security, then all bets are off, and the treaty no longer applies,” he says. “That would inhibit our ballistic missile defense program, even though it’s not aimed at Russia — it’s aimed at Iran, North Korea, and others.”

The Obama administration essentially has handed Russia a veto over our missile defense program, Perle says. “At any point they can say we don’t like what you’re doing, you’re putting us in a position where we’ll walk away from this treaty. I think this president would back down under those circumstances.”

A close examination of all this is vital, but the White House refuses to turn over the negotiating records, says Perle, who was President Ronald Reagan’s assistant defense secretary.

“This treaty doesn’t need to be signed now, and I don’t believe it needs to be signed at all. There is no reason after the Cold War why we can’t build what we think is necessary and let the Russians build what they want. We don’t need a treaty to regulate relations between us.”

As for the war in Afghanistan, “it’s very hard to judge progress in a war of this kind,” Perle tells Newsmax.TV. “Attacks are up. The key to fighting an insurgency like this is persuading the population we are the winning side.”

But President Barack Obama’s imposition of a deadline for U.S. troops to withdraw from Afghanistan makes the effort much more difficult, Perle says. “In effect, he’s saying to any Afghan who’s trying to decide whether to cooperate with an insurgent, the U.S. is going to be out of here. The clear implication is that a smart Afghan will work with the people who will be there after we’re gone.”

Regarding the contentious issue of nuclear Iran, Perle says Israel will have to attack Iran to prevent it from developing such weapons.

“Time is running out on [halting] Iran’s nuclear program, though I believe they’ve been dealt a severe setback by the clever insertion of a worm [computer virus] in their control systems,” Perle says.

And in the Asian theater, North Korea will continue to cause problems for the United States because the Obama administration isn’t willing to put enough pressure on China to moderate the rogue nation’s behavior, Perle said.

The United States has tolerated North Korea’s outrageous behavior for too long, Perle says.

“Our task is to make our views so emphatic that China will respond,” he said. “I believe we could do that, but we haven’t. The Obama administration has been unwilling to deliver the necessary ultimatum to China.”


© Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Read more: Reagan Aide Perle: START 'Seriously Flawed'

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[jakee 1,611]

Quote

I got your point dude

Well you say that, but since you decided to instead reply to a non-existant pert of my post we really have no way of knowing.

Quote

Otherwise, you get what you start

No, not really. I started by replying to what you actually said.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

I got your point dude

Well you say that, but since you decided to instead reply to a non-existant pert of my post we really have no way of knowing.

Quote

Otherwise, you get what you start

No, not really. I started by replying to what you actually said.

No
You replyed with an off topic snarky comment to what I said

Sucks to be you

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Do yoiu really know what you are supporting? Or are you just blindly following the party line ?

Quote

President Obama’s New START creates an implementing body, called the Bilateral Consultative Commission (BCC), and gives it broad powers to promote the objectives of the treaty. These powers could include imposing additional restrictions on the U.S. missile defense program. This is an unacceptable cession of our national sovereignty. President Ronald Reagan walked away from Mikhail Gorbachev’s offer to eliminate nuclear weapons because he asked us to give up our missile defenses in return. No true conservative could support this treaty as it stands.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[okalb 104]

Quote

No
You replyed with an off topic snarky comment to what I said

Sucks to be you

Actually he didn't. His reply was completely on topic and a perfect response to you. You really should go back and reread the post. You are looking foolish right now.

Time flies like an arrow....fruit flies like a banana

[jakee 1,611]

Quote

No
You replyed with an off topic snarky comment to what I said

Off topic how?

I'm getting more and more convinced that you still haven't actually read my post. What exactly is it you think I said?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Yes, 'weaker'. Kinda like everest getting 'shorter' when a foot of spindrift is blown off the top.

On topic?

Ok

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

No
You replyed with an off topic snarky comment to what I said

Off topic how?

I'm getting more and more convinced that you still haven't actually read my post. What exactly is it you think I said?

Quote

Yes, 'weaker'. Kinda like everest getting 'shorter' when a foot of spindrift is blown off the top.

Good one

ya

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[jakee 1,611]

Quote

Quote

Yes, 'weaker'. Kinda like everest getting 'shorter' when a foot of spindrift is blown off the top.

On topic?

Ok

Um, yeah.

Unless your assertion that the USA would be made weaker by the START treaty was, itself, off topic. Was it?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[okalb 104]

Quote

Good one

ya

Now you copied and pasted it and either you still haven't actually read it or you just don't get it. I am not sure which, but it is a perfectly valid response.

Time flies like an arrow....fruit flies like a banana

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Yes, 'weaker'. Kinda like everest getting 'shorter' when a foot of spindrift is blown off the top.

On topic?

Ok

Um, yeah.

Unless your assertion that the USA would be made weaker by the START treaty was, itself, off topic. Was it?

The assurtion is correct
It would weaken the US

I have posted opinions and comments from other who think this and why they think the way they do. I have posted to verify that as of this AM the record has not yet been released. Why? What else is being hidden?

This admin just tried to pust through a spending bill in such a way that it would not have been reviewed before passed. We know why now.

I am not against A START treaty. I will remain against THIS START treaty until such time as it has been thoughly reviewed. Which is seems this admin does not want to happen

I await you next snarky reply unles you have some substance to interject

I will not be holding my breath

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

See my responce to jakee


If an off the cuff comment like he made has substance to you, fine.

I will remember that in the future

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[okalb 104]

Quote

See my responce to jakee


If an off the cuff comment like he made has substance to you, fine.

I will remember that in the future

Nobody was saying that you have to agree with what he said. I don't care if you agree or not. You looked foolish because first you said that he was picking on your spelling which he was not. Then you said it was off topic which it was not. Then you finally replied with your opinion which is fine but it took you that many posts to actually read what he said and reply to the content rather than argue about something that was clearly in your own head.

And, you still didn't actually reply to his comment. You said it weakens the US. His response basically said, when you are so much stronger than the next strongest country it isn't gonna hurt to get rid of a few nukes. If you didn't get that out of his comment about everest, then you still don't get it.

Time flies like an arrow....fruit flies like a banana

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

See my responce to jakee


If an off the cuff comment like he made has substance to you, fine.

I will remember that in the future

Nobody was saying that you have to agree with what he said. I don't care if you agree or not. You looked foolish because first you said that he was picking on your spelling which he was not. Then you said it was off topic which it was not. Then you finally replied with your opinion which is fine but it took you that many posts to actually read what he said and reply to the content rather than argue about something that was clearly in your own head.

Spelling or not his post was just a substance absent slap. If he thinks that the START treaty is good then back that up.

But it is easier to take it off topic than deal with the reasons

He made a statement that indicated it would make little difference if it did weaken the US. Correct?

ANY weakening of the US is NOT acceptable in this context. Period!

And what about releasing the record? Got any comment on that? What about the comments from others who have done this kind of work in the past?
Are their opinions relevant?

The OP put this topic in the context that the only reason START was being opposed was because it is Obama's treaty. Do you disagree with my assessment on that?

I have the feeling from the reading I have done it (the START treaty) is flawed. Badly flawed. But Obama cares more about himself and how he looks than he does this country. And he keeps trying to prove my last statement correct

(now I await the I hate Obama reply from billvon)

So, I look foolish to you? Fine. I really do not care

Do you want to address the points I have raised now and get back on topic?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[jakee 1,611]

Quote

If an off the cuff comment like he made has substance to you, fine.

I will remember that in the future

So hang on, what's the accusation again? You were talking about topicality, not substantiveness. You can't just change the point of attack and pretend that's what someone else's post was relating to.

Quote

I have posted opinions and comments from other who think this and why they think the way they do.

And comment and opinion from other others has been posted explaining why they think the opposite.

Quote

I have posted to verify that as of this AM the record has not yet been released. Why? What else is being hidden?

Information regarding national security, I would imagine. But since it's Obama let's assume it must something really really bad, weak and anti-American. (And don't think we can't guess what your position on witholding information would be if the shoe was on the other foot)

Do you want to have an ideagasm?