Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

[blockski]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

Point to one post where I said I disagreed with it.

Also, the underlined part is one of the silliest things I have ever read.

So, you're just being a contrarian for no particular reason? You seem to have as much interest in actual governance as the Republicans do.

You also realize that one of the key elements of this treaty is the ability for us to send inspectors, right? Ergo, if they do not allow the inspections or if they mislead the inspectors, or if the inspections do not match up with our intelligence, then we will know that they are not in compliance.

 

[blockski]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

Again.

What happens if Russia doesn't comply?

Again.

Their nuclear stockpile remains large and relatively insecure. How is that a good thing?

 

[sagard]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

What happens if Russia doesn't comply? Level of difficulty: No platitudes.

It's really unlikely either either or them side would comply completely. It's very unlike either side would ever attack anyone with nukes as well. Any level of reduction reduces the chance that any of their nukes fall into hands of someone who would use them.

I think our focus should be on keeping an on what the Chinese are doing long term vs. what Russia is doing today.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

Two things:

1. Your faith in Russia actually complying if that's passed is so misguided it physically pains me to read that.

2. Rammstein is quite possibly the largest base outside of the US. It's used as a launching pad for pretty much anything east of the Atlantic. Yep, let's shut that down because obviously it isn't needed.

Cause I've seen the Russian democracy at work. The right will never admit it...but Russian public opinion is huge. Putin only stayed in because he was poplular due to his resurrection of the Russian economy, which was absolutely horrible when he took office.

Its very simple...everything is monitored continuously. We know what they're doing...they know what we're doing. And if we have any questions we just look at the satellite film. And in the end, it gets rid of massive nuclear weapons that we can't monitor in old facilities. This treaty is a slam dunk win/win for the US, Russia and pretty much everyone else...that doesn't include a win for one group, cold warriors.

Russia is not a threat. Russia has a third of the EUs population and 1/7 of its economy...and likely even less of its military capability. If you're talking about staging more troops to send to the middle east or north africa...you're probably on your own on that one. In addition to serving absolutely no purpose, with a weak dollar massive European deployments are frightfully expensive.

Why do I...a liberal...find myself having conversation after conversation on topics with conservatives who want much more govt spending than I do?

 

[XYZ]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

Cause I've seen the Russian democracy at work. The right will never admit it...but Russian public opinion is huge. Putin only stayed in because he was poplular due to his resurrection of the Russian economy, which was absolutely horrible when he took office.

Its very simple...everything is monitored continuously. We know what they're doing...they know what we're doing. And if we have any questions we just look at the satellite film. And in the end, it gets rid of massive nuclear weapons that we can't monitor in old facilities. This treaty is a slam dunk win/win for the US, Russia and pretty much everyone else...that doesn't include a win for one group, cold warriors.

You sir, are an absolute idiot.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

Its very simple...everything is monitored continuously. We know what they're doing...they know what we're doing. And if we have any questions we just look at the satellite film. And in the end, it gets rid of massive nuclear weapons that we can't monitor in old facilities.

Um...yeah. How'd that satellite film help us looking for WMDs in Iraq?

I'm in favor of the treaty, and I think we should ratify it to save ourselves the cost of maintaining obsolete and useless weapons. But "because we'll be able to verify it" is not a valid reason to be in favor. We won't. So what if Russia illicitly keeps 4000 nukes and we "only" have 1550? Is 1550 not still sufficient to mess them up badly enough to be a deterrent?

Keeping one single nuke more than is required to be a deterrent just gets into a johnson measuring contest. Yippee.

 

[Slap Shot]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

You honestly believe that Russia will comply with any nuclear agreement?

Since it's 2010 not 1950 and given who is now president I'd say it's more likey now than at any time in recent history. And try reading and digesting what Blocksi has written in regards to this topic.

 

[unofan]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

Yeah... that's exactly it.

Lets try this again...

What happens if Russia doesn't comply? Level of difficulty: No platitudes.

edit: what happens with this treaty... Obama gets something he wouldn't get with a standard law and Russia gets to look like it plays nice... so that, yes, Obama gets a "victory"... as false as it may be.

Again.

What happens if Russia doesn't comply?

Nothing? Or is this a trick question?

Right now there's enough nukes to destroy the world what, 3 times over? If we sign the treaty and Russia doesn't live up to its bargain then what, it can still destroy us 3x over and we can only destroy it 2x over? Oh noes?

 

[Patman]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

Since it's 2010 not 1950 and given who is now president I'd say it's more likey now than at any time in recent history. And try reading and digesting what Blocksi has written in regards to this topic.

I'm not sure complete gibberish is worth trying to understand. We get rid of missle defense and we pare down some of our arsenal on the HOPE that the Russians will do the same. So, really what I'm seeing is less of a treaty to accomplish goals on both sides but rather an edict of religious kant. Unless the consequence of the Russians violating the treaty is for us to terminate the contract and start right back up on missle defense.

I don't know why you guys insist on this candyland view of the world. Its terribly myopic. There is nothing here that couldn't be done unilaterally, as you all have admitted, that's essentially what is going to happen... we WILL do something and the russians MIGHT do something.

 

[Patman]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

Nothing? Or is this a trick question?

Right now there's enough nukes to destroy the world what, 3 times over? If we sign the treaty and Russia doesn't live up to its bargain then what, it can still destroy us 3x over and we can only destroy it 2x over? Oh noes?

So, why did we need a treaty then? Also, note that this is not completely about stockpiles. Its also about the ability for Russia to project power into Europe in relation to gaslines. You think anybody really cares about the size of nuclear weapon stockpiles? And even so, haven't we admitted that the only guarentee in this case is unilateral American action. If we wanted to do it, we could do it without the Russians. Instead we get this fig leaf and somehow a lot of people are celebrating like this was the greatest thing done in the last 10 years.

 

[unofan]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

So, why did we need a treaty then?

Because all else being equal, fewer nuclear weapons that can fall into rogue hands is a good thing?

 

[Patman]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

Because all else being equal, fewer nuclear weapons that can fall into rogue hands is a good thing?

Sigh.

edit: you do realize its been nearly 20 years since the fall of the Russian Communist state... if there were going to be "loose nukes" then they're gone.... and considering the current command control of the "free" Russian state its very unlikely that any additional "loose nukes" could ever occur going forward. Unless Russia wants to posit that their country is not stable.

I disagree with any policy that starts with "well, what we hope is..."... hope is another form of ignorance that masks itself as understanding... so we're talking about reducing our pile (and, yes, I know that there's enough bombs to destroy the world a couple of times over) and eliminating missile defense because of some outdated idea of lost nuclear weapons. Seriously?

 

[Tundra]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

I disagree with any policy that starts with "well, what we hope is..."... hope is another form of ignorance that masks itself as understanding... so we're talking about reducing our pile (and, yes, I know that there's enough bombs to destroy the world a couple of times over) and eliminating missile defense because of some outdated idea of lost nuclear weapons. Seriously?

I thought the idea was eventually we'll have zero nukes aimed at each other.

Funny that Reagan understood WHY he built up the military (nuclear weapons included) in the cold war toward peace. It seems the current republicans are stuck on "any military spending is good" motto without any end game.

President Reagan

Trust, but verify. At the signing of the INF Treaty he used it again and his counterpart Mikhail Gorbachev responded: "You repeat that at every meeting," to which Reagan answered "I like it."[1]

The Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) is a 1987 agreement between the United States and the Soviet Union.

By the treaty's deadline of June 1, 1991, a total of 2,692 of such weapons had been destroyed, 846 by the U.S. and 1,846 by the Soviet Union. Under the treaty both nations were allowed to inspect each other's military installations.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

Cause I've seen the Russian democracy at work

Still being shot at on 394?

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

Why do posters with nothing to say...still feel like they need to say something?

I ask that about your posts every time I read them as well. Weird. You're the one who made the comment, not me.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

Um...yeah. How'd that satellite film help us looking for WMDs in Iraq?

I'm in favor of the treaty, and I think we should ratify it to save ourselves the cost of maintaining obsolete and useless weapons. But "because we'll be able to verify it" is not a valid reason to be in favor. We won't. So what if Russia illicitly keeps 4000 nukes and we "only" have 1550? Is 1550 not still sufficient to mess them up badly enough to be a deterrent?

Keeping one single nuke more than is required to be a deterrent just gets into a johnson measuring contest. Yippee.

Then we largely agree. I would add that a satellite wouldn't see an underground program...but would see a missle system that is dismantled and disposed of.

Every day around the world, power is shifting from governments to the people. And as with Americans, international citizens want to conduct business...not be burdened by a world with nukes. Leaders set the tone for their environment...here's an opportunity to set an example and help push worldwide public opinion towards the view that nuclear arsenals are to be discouraged.

 

[St. Clown]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

Again, I just don't understand why the politicos have made this such a supremely necessary piece of legislation in the past couple weeks. Why was this START III or IV treaty (whatever number we're on now) not given consideration back in December or January? Other than the new Congresss coming in January, is there reason to believe that anything has changed to make it so important?

Once again, this all seems very fishy. Either we're not being told something or it's strictly politics. If it's just politics, then the treaty should absolutely have the skids put on it.

 

[huskyfan]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

I don't get the sudden rush. maybe, because they were working on the giant arms deal with our very very good friends, the Saudis?

 

[unofan]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

Sigh.

edit: you do realize its been nearly 20 years since the fall of the Russian Communist state... if there were going to be "loose nukes" then they're gone.... and considering the current command control of the "free" Russian state its very unlikely that any additional "loose nukes" could ever occur going forward. Unless Russia wants to posit that their country is not stable.

I disagree with any policy that starts with "well, what we hope is..."... hope is another form of ignorance that masks itself as understanding... so we're talking about reducing our pile (and, yes, I know that there's enough bombs to destroy the world a couple of times over) and eliminating missile defense because of some outdated idea of lost nuclear weapons. Seriously?

Fine, how's this: nuclear weapons are expensive to maintain. We need to cut our federal budget. One thing we can cut from the budget without harming overall national seurity is a significant portion of our nuclear arsenal. If we can get the Russians to cut theirs too, all the better. That sufficient for you?

Or is this another instance of cut spending...but not the spending *I* want?

 

[blockski]

Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?

Again, I just don't understand why the politicos have made this such a supremely necessary piece of legislation in the past couple weeks. Why was this START III or IV treaty (whatever number we're on now) not given consideration back in December or January? Other than the new Congresss coming in January, is there reason to believe that anything has changed to make it so important?

Once again, this all seems very fishy. Either we're not being told something or it's strictly politics. If it's just politics, then the treaty should absolutely have the skids put on it.

Call it 'politics' if you like - opposing it can be just as political as supporting it.

The real answer is procedure. Congress has a lot of parliamentary rules that even astute observers don't know - and the average American has no idea whatsoever. They've put in a lot of time and effort into hearings and other notice requirements that would be scrapped if this issue isn't resolved in the current Congress.

And this was given plenty of attention earlier in the year.

Framing this as a sudden rush is just political posturing. Nothing Congress does is sudden.