okalb 104
Recommended Posts
rushmc 23
QuoteI never had any interest in discussing the treaty with you. All I was trying to do was point out that your responses made no sense and you were accusing jakee of something that didn't exist. So you just keep digging that hole, I'm out.
Neither was jakee
and
You were never in
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
jclalor 12
QuoteQuoteDo yoiu really know what you are supporting? Or are you just blindly following the party line ?
***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.
I think the simple fact of the matter is that you nor I have the qualifications to determine the merits of a nuclear arms treaty. We have to put our trust in those that are qualified. If it were only Democrats pushing for this treaty I could very easily see how the Right could have opposition, and probably with good reason.
It seems when Presidents and their top cabinet members retire from public office, they seem to mellow out with the rhetoric ( With the exception of a certain VP) and with no longer having to cater to the prevailing political winds, focus on whats best for the country. When it comes to national security, I trust all of the before mentioned secretary's of state emphatically, if they were against it, it would be suspect in my mind.
I have yet to see a response from you or anybody that can show a reason why this group of such esteemed and legendary Republicans would now advocate for a treaty that you claim is so error ridden and would also put our nation at risk. What would be their motivation? Why would they now be willing to put their necks out and risk their legacy to help the Democrats? They must now truly believe this treaty is what's best for the long term security of this country, and not just for a few cheap political points.
rushmc 23
QuoteQuoteQuoteDo yoiu really know what you are supporting? Or are you just blindly following the party line ?
***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.
I think the simple fact of the matter is that you nor I have the qualifications to determine the merits of a nuclear arms treaty. We have to put our trust in those that are qualified. If it were only Democrats pushing for this treaty I could very easily see how the Right could have opposition, and probably with good reason.
It seems when Presidents and their top cabinet members retire from public office, they seem to mellow out with the rhetoric ( With the exception of a certain VP) and with no longer having to cater to the prevailing political winds, focus on whats best for the country. When it comes to national security, I trust all of the before mentioned secretary's of state emphatically, if they were against it, it would be suspect in my mind.
I have yet to see a response from you or anybody that can show a reason why this group of such esteemed and legendary Republicans would now advocate for a treaty that you claim is so error ridden and would also put our nation at risk. What would be their motivation? Why would they now be willing to put their necks out and risk their legacy to help the Democrats? They must now truly believe this treaty is what's best for the long term security of this country, and not just for a few cheap political points.
and there as many good people opposed to it
All I ask it that the nomal vetting procedure is followed
This admin does not want that
Same tactic with the HC bill
Same tactic with the now dead spending bill
Why the same tactic again?
If the Senate signs off on it AFTER the normal procedure, I am OK with it
How about you?
Or are you OK with the "we have to pass it to know what is in it" approach?
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
Amazon 7
QuoteQuoteQuoteDo yoiu really know what you are supporting? Or are you just blindly following the party line ?
***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.
I think the simple fact of the matter is that you nor I have the qualifications to determine the merits of a nuclear arms treaty. We have to put our trust in those that are qualified. If it were only Democrats pushing for this treaty I could very easily see how the Right could have opposition, and probably with good reason.
It seems when Presidents and their top cabinet members retire from public office, they seem to mellow out with the rhetoric ( With the exception of a certain VP) and with no longer having to cater to the prevailing political winds, focus on whats best for the country. When it comes to national security, I trust all of the before mentioned secretary's of state emphatically, if they were against it, it would be suspect in my mind.
I have yet to see a response from you or anybody that can show a reason why this group of such esteemed and legendary Republicans would now advocate for a treaty that you claim is so error ridden and would also put our nation at risk. What would be their motivation? Why would they now be willing to put their necks out and risk their legacy to help the Democrats? They must now truly believe this treaty is what's best for the long term security of this country, and not just for a few cheap political points.
Seriously..... DUUUUUDE you have to take into account that there are numbnuts around here who are probably thinking those guys are just RINO's
jclalor 12
Quote
Seriously..... DUUUUUDE you have to take into account that there are numbnuts around here who are probably thinking those guys are just RINO's
Most of these guys here are always longing for the days when these same guys were running things. Now all of a sudden they forgot who they were.
jclalor 12
Quoteand there as many good people opposed to it
All I ask it that the nomal vetting procedure is followed
This admin does not want that
Same tactic with the HC bill
Same tactic with the now dead spending bill
Why the same tactic again?
If the Senate signs off on it AFTER the normal procedure, I am OK with it
How about you?
Or are you OK with the "we have to pass it to know what is in it" approach?
There very well may be good people opposed to it, I choose to side with the same men that negotiated all the other previous nuclear treaties that were not only responsible for keeping the planet it one piece but also helped to accelerate the collapse of the USSR.
The bill has had plenty of time to be vetted, How could so many offer opinions if it had not been. There is no comparison to the health care bill,
I am for this bill being passed, the sooner the better.
To hold up all legislation until 2% of the country gets a tax break is just silly
And to suggest that Democrats are anti-Christian for wanting to work the week before Christmas, just like the rest of us have to work, is just bizarre.
What is up with all these Republicans that are against the very bills that they themselves have laden with pork? Fact truly is stranger than fiction.
jakee 1,611
QuoteWhy do you need to be able to blow up everyone who might want to fight you that many times over? What actual difference does it make to the effectiveness of the USA's deterrent?
YES!
This simple fact is what has kept the world safer IMO
I'll try again: What actual difference does it make to the effectiveness of the USA's deterrent?
"Yes" is not a valid answer.
Do you want to have an ideagasm?
rushmc 23
One of my posts is from one who negociated a START treaty
Square that
Truly blind is one who will not see
Square that
Truly blind is one who will not see
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
Quote
I think the simple fact of the matter is that you nor I have the qualifications to determine the merits of a nuclear arms treaty. We have to put our trust in those that are qualified.
Are you fucking kidding? You have that low an opinion of yourself?
I'm quite confident that I'm as qualified or better than the majority that will vote for it in the Senate. And I don't think the bar is all that high. This isn't nearly as complicated as economics. It's pretty simple economics, and some game theory.
That said:
The reduction in number of nukes will not change our deterrent capability. So long as we can have a few hundred nukes on each of the 3 platforms (subs, bombers, missiles), we have sufficient capability.
The lack of verification in Russia, and the alleged ability of them to bail if we do a missile defense plan are flaws, though they don't significantly affect the US because Russia is now a 2nd rate world power. It's the Euro's problem, not our's. They can start spending for their own defense again.
Additionally, there's no point in blowing money on a Star Wars, Part III when our deficit is so high. An ineffective result (the most likely) will cost a fortune and not work. An effective one will cost even more, and just encourage our enemies to delivery the bomb along with the illegal drug traffic. It would also encourage an enemy to use a surprise attack over a slower, diplomacy driven escalation.
But the real problem I see here is that whether or not the Senate properly reviews it, I don't think this is appropriate legislation for a lame duck Congress. There is no time urgency here, so something with bearing on our foreign relationships for the next decade should be taken up in February.
QuoteAs 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.
Are we missing WikiLeaks yet?
jclalor 12
Quote***
QuoteQuote
I think the simple fact of the matter is that you nor I have the qualifications to determine the merits of a nuclear arms treaty. We have to put our trust in those that are qualified.
Are you fucking kidding? You have that low an opinion of yourself?
I'm quite confident that I'm as qualified or better than the majority that will vote for it in the Senate. And I don't think the bar is all that high. This isn't nearly as complicated as economics. It's pretty simple economics, and some game theory.
That said:
The reduction in number of nukes will not change our deterrent capability. So long as we can have a few hundred nukes on each of the 3 platforms (subs, bombers, missiles), we have sufficient capability.
The lack of verification in Russia, and the alleged ability of them to bail if we do a missile defense plan are flaws, though they don't significantly affect the US because Russia is now a 2nd rate world power. It's the Euro's problem, not our's. They can start spending for their own defense again.
Additionally, there's no point in blowing money on a Star Wars, Part III when our deficit is so high. An ineffective result (the most likely) will cost a fortune and not work. An effective one will cost even more, and just encourage our enemies to delivery the bomb along with the illegal drug traffic. It would also encourage an enemy to use a surprise attack over a slower, diplomacy driven escalation.
But the real problem I see here is that whether or not the Senate properly reviews it, I don't think this is appropriate legislation for a lame duck Congress. There is no time urgency here, so something with bearing on our foreign relationships for the next decade should be taken up in February.
I dont think we will ever see war heads on either side ever reduced to only a few hundred each in our lifetime. I do know that the theory of MAD is that if one side was able to destroy 98% of the others war heads in a first strike, that they should still be able to have enought to retaliate against hundreds, if not thousand of their targets. Of course parity of the nuclear triad is what these treatys are all about and I think it gets way to complicated for the average person or Senator to have any handle on this.
I still have not seen a response as to why all the former secretarys of state are insistant this treaty be ratified. what would be their motive.
"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. "
HAHAHA. That spells you right up. Too bad Word can't edit your critical thinking ability. My sister, who has Down's, always seems to use spell check correctly. Are you that distracted or slow ?
HAHAHA. That spells you right up. Too bad Word can't edit your critical thinking ability. My sister, who has Down's, always seems to use spell check correctly. Are you that distracted or slow ?
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites