GOP on target to "get" obama..... (1 Viewer)

[liblady]

screw the country, the gop cares for nothing but stopping obama, no matter the issue, now kyl has derailed the nuclear weapons treaty........

NYT: Arms treaty with Russia hits snag as GOP balks - Politics - The New York Times - msnbc.com

President Obama’s hopes of ratifying a new arms control treaty with Russia by the end of the year appeared to come undone on Tuesday as the chief Senate Republican negotiator moved to block a vote on the pact, one of the White House’s top foreign policy goals, in the lame-duck session of Congress.

 

[Harshaw]

It's a crappy treaty. Well, not for the Russians.

 

[liblady]

It's a crappy treaty. Well, not for the Russians.

why, specifically?

 

[MaggieD]

screw the country, the gop cares for nothing but stopping obama, no matter the issue, now kyl has derailed the nuclear weapons treaty........

NYT: Arms treaty with Russia hits snag as GOP balks - Politics - The New York Times - msnbc.com

President Obama’s hopes of ratifying a new arms control treaty with Russia by the end of the year appeared to come undone on Tuesday as the chief Senate Republican negotiator moved to block a vote on the pact, one of the White House’s top foreign policy goals, in the lame-duck session of Congress.

What a partisan post.

President Obama wants it. It must be good. The Republicans don't want to vote on it during the lame duck session. They must be obstructionists.

Maybe the treaty sucks as relates to security for the United States of America?? Nah, can't be that. It's from Obama.

 

[liblady]

What a partisan post.

President Obama wants it. It must be good. The Republicans don't want to vote on it during the lame duck session. They must be obstructionists.

Maybe the treaty sucks as relates to security for the United States of America?? Nah, can't be that. It's from Obama.

did you read the article, maggie? seems not.

 

[Harshaw]

Because it reduces our strategic arms to parity with Russia without addressing, at all, Russia's 10-to-1 tactical arms advantage, while it pretty much forbids our development of missile defense. It treats the balance of power as though it were still the Cold War bi-polar days, where the USSR was the only major strategic threat, and doesn't at all take into account the different roles the US and Russia play in the world. We have global defense commitments; Russia doesn't.

We get nothing out of this treaty, yet we give up a lot. That's a crappy treaty.

 

[MKULTRABOY]

Because it reduces our strategic arms to parity with Russia without addressing, at all, Russia's 10-to-1 tactical arms advantage, while it pretty much forbids our development of missile defense. It treats the balance of power as though it were still the Cold War bi-polar days, where the USSR was the only major strategic threat, and doesn't at all take into account the different roles the US and Russia play in the world. We have global defense commitments; Russia doesn't.

We get nothing out of this treaty, yet we give up a lot. That's a crappy treaty.

What precisely do we give up that is so important go on. I hear using nuclear weapons on non-nuclear states would be off the table. Wah.

Also... he is just doing what Reagan did. If you remember.

 

[MKULTRABOY]

Russia's 10-to-1 tactical arms advantage

Did they make a treaty with the Aliens before us and get an advantage from them because this is news.

 

[OscarB63]

screw the country, the gop cares for nothing but stopping obama, no matter the issue, now kyl has derailed the nuclear weapons treaty........

rewind about 2 years and replace GOP with democrats and Obama with Bush and you have the same old same old. funny how the ones who were "out to get Bush" are now the main ones crying about how the GOP is "out to get Obama". :shrug:

 

[Harshaw]

What precisely do we give up that is so important go on.

Oh, nothing much, just our strategic arms advantage and with it flexibility to adjust to rapidly-changing global threats, as well as the ability to develop missile defense. Getting nothing in return.

Also... he is just doing what Reagan did. If you remember.

Yeah? Show that.

 

[Harshaw]

Did they make a treaty with the Aliens before us and get an advantage from them because this is news.

It may well be news to you.

 

[liblady]

Because it reduces our strategic arms to parity with Russia without addressing, at all, Russia's 10-to-1 tactical arms advantage, while it pretty much forbids our development of missile defense. It treats the balance of power as though it were still the Cold War bi-polar days, where the USSR was the only major strategic threat, and doesn't at all take into account the different roles the US and Russia play in the world. We have global defense commitments; Russia doesn't.

We get nothing out of this treaty, yet we give up a lot. That's a crappy treaty.

seems mr kyl didn't think so until the balance of power changed. what we get out of the treaty is a reduction in nuclear weapons, which can't be bad, as we have more than enough to destroy the world as it is.

 

[liblady]

Oh, nothing much, just our strategic arms advantage and with it flexibility to adjust to rapidly-changing global threats, as well as the ability to develop missile defense. Getting nothing in return.




Yeah? Show that.

start 1 WAS reagan.

 

[Harshaw]

start 1 WAS reagan.

So what? That doesn't mean the terms of the treaties were remotely similar. Just because it shares an acronym it doesn't make it so.

 

[MKULTRABOY]

It may well be news to you.

And my international security class with on paper results of simulations of nuclear exchanges between Russia and the United states peer reviewed and performed by multiple sources. Please divulge the Russian advantage because I dont think they've had one since we were flying long range bombers in circles over the arctic to annihilate every ant in Russia since the 60s-70s at the drop of a hat.

 

[Harshaw]

seems mr kyl didn't think so until the balance of power changed. what we get out of the treaty is a reduction in nuclear weapons, which can't be bad, as we have more than enough to destroy the world as it is.

Yeah. A reduction of OUR arms.

 

[MKULTRABOY]

So what? That doesn't mean the terms of the treaties were remotely similar. Just because it shares an acronym it doesn't make it so.

No, please tell us the terms of the treaty and how it disadvantages us...

 

[MaggieD]

No, please tell us the terms of the treaty and how it disadvantages us...

If this post wasn't completely partisan, The OP would have done her own homework.

 

[MKULTRABOY]

Oh, nothing much, just our strategic arms advantage and with it flexibility to adjust to rapidly-changing global threats, as well as the ability to develop missile defense. Getting nothing in return.

Essentially you want to support the mythos that you can successfully create a shield by shooting a bullet with a bullet, or a laser... Missile defense is not even in consideration in curriculum. Also I didn't realize Russia wouldn't have to give up a single nuke.

Yeah? Show that.

Weird that...

http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/2008/01/13_krieger_reagan_abolitionist.php?krieger

Not the best source but it was well known. Its funny when on MSNBC Obama is even using some of the same phrases Reagan did. As in they show him... then a clip of reagan... word for word almost.

 

[Harshaw]

And my international security class with simulations of nuclear exchanges between Russia and the United states peer reviewed and performed by multiple sources. Please divulge the Russian advantage because I dont think they've had one since we were flying long range bombers in circles over the arctic to annihilate every ant in Russia since the 60s-70s at the drop of a hat.

It's simple math. :shrug:

These "simulations" are irrelevant to the point. And approaching this as though the Cold War dynamic is still at play is precisely the point. :roll: It's a very different world now.

 

[Harshaw]

No, please tell us the terms of the treaty and how it disadvantages us...

I already told you. :shrug:

If you want to make specious comparisions with what Reagan did, then YOU have to show how the treaties were substantially the same.

Your link does not do so.

 

[liblady]

If this post wasn't completely partisan, The OP would have done her own homework.

dear maggie: this was posted in partisan politics, was it not?

 

[MKULTRABOY]

It's simple math. :shrug:

These "simulations" are irrelevant to the point. And approaching this as though the Cold War dynamic is still at play is precisely the point. :roll: It's a very different world now.

Different how... only a handful of nations possess a viable deterrent. As in less than the number of fingers I have on both hands. You essentially are advocating pre-emptively nuking another nation... a small cough: 'rogue' nation possibly? Where did you get the sound bytes you're repeating.

Also, when you deny the information the policy makes from both countries are reading and depending on (aside from their privileged tactical information) and policy makers are depending on then you basically encourage ignorance.

 

[Harshaw]

Essentially you want to support the mythos that you can successfully create a shield by shooting a bullet with a bullet, or a laser...

Considering 90% of the tests have been successful, sure. :shrug: And it's merely a technical challenge. There is no technical challenge that we cannot meet.

In any case, it's fundamentally stupid to give up our ability to try while getting nothing for it.

Missile defense is not even in consideration in curriculum.

And what does that babbling mean?

Also I didn't realize Russia wouldn't have to give up a single nuke.

I didn't say they wouldn't. I said we'd be giving up our advantage for parity.

 

[MaggieD]

dear maggie: this was posted in partisan politics, was it not?

:rofl -- Darn it, LibLady, I hate it when you're right.