Nuclear Treaty With Russia? Are we Just Trying To Destroy This Country? (Mossad, Taliban)

[AONE]

This thread is the typical knee jerk I hate Obama so everything he does is wrong thread. Don't you get embarrassed enough about how much of what you rail against started with the Rpugs? You have so little concept of what is good you simply thrash about that this Obama thing is bad, it must be Obama did it..

This is the danger to getting your party line from Faux entertainment. Here is your latest news.. Zsa Zsa is believed dead and Tony Curtis slept with Marilyn... See there are other news sources as reliable as Faux... that's from the National Enquirer.

[TnHilltopper]

Originally Posted by wrench409

Apparently so is our government.

Reduction in missiles is not the only issue in the debate. Reduction in forces and delivery systems hurt more than just our ability to to defend ourselves. Why cut our bomber and submarine fleets?

Because they are ridiculously expensive and we already not only have adequate coverage, we have exceedingly adequate coverage. Using your position, no amount of subs and bombers are enough.

What is the "right" number of subs and bombers then? How many do we need in your opinion and what do you base this assessment and or criticism on?

The other issues were listed by lifelongMOgal and all her points were clearly ignored by our current inept administration.

What evidence do you have that this administration ignored the points made by this poster? Do you have intelligence or information concerning the decision making process that you care to share with the forum, perhaps a video or transcripts of the meeting where this was discussed?

It doesn't matter who began this treaty or when, it was bad when first written and throwing out a blanket statement like 'why didn't you oppose it when Reagan and Bush began it' is asinine. Was CD here when that happened? No. Were people up in arms criticizing it when it was first introduced? Yes. Did Russia adhere to the original treaty? NO!

So it doesn't matter who began, yet you are saying this administration is inept, but fail to level the same charge for Ronald Reagan who wanted FAR MORE reductions. Why the double standard? I'm asking you NOW, why was it ok for prior administrations to sign previous START treaties but not this one? Please explain the differences between the early 1990's and now? It is relevant because you are being hypocritical otherwise as I suspect out of little more than hatred for this President as is clearly evidenced by your opposition to him on pretty much everything.

What part of START did Russia not adhere to?

Kowtowing to Russia's demands 'take it or leave it' attitude is folly.

Do you realize that you just created an impossible situation here? You are saying that kowtowing a "take it leave it" proposition is folly, so in other words, if Obama signs he is caving in to Russia, but if he doesn't, he is caving into Russia.

Like many things partisans complain about, it really doesn't matter what the President does, you will tear him down regardless. So since you will tear it down regardless it tends to make charges light in veracity as it would be to ask the Pope what his favorite religion is.

Signing a treaty to extend a treaty that your counterpart has not honored is simply the epitome of stupidity.

Signing a treaty to further your own world view is insanity.

Here is another example, "signing a treaty to further your own world view is insanity" but what if it is in our best interest? Is it insanity when Reagan signed the first one because it furthered his world view that planet earth and human beings would be better off with fewer nuclear weapons laying around rotting?

Are you arguing against yourself or just out of vile hatred for this administration?

[Dane_in_LA]

Originally Posted by citizenkane2

We really trust this man??

There are two basic options vis-a-vis trusting Russia. You can work on an agreement with Russia that allows for mutual inspections. Or, ironically, you can trust the Russian leadership to be honest when dealing with numbers and types of weapons.

You seem to insist that Russia isn't trustworthy, yet you're arguing against one of very few verification options. It's not a very logical stance.

[Dane_in_LA]

Originally Posted by wrench409

Reduction in forces and delivery systems hurt more than just our ability to to defend ourselves. Why cut our bomber and submarine fleets?

Why keep weapons systems around when they're no longer needed? Not that there are any submarine fleet cuts planned, the idea is to remove launch tubes. But running military hardware costs money, and money, you may have noticed, is in short supply.

Signing a treaty to extend a treaty that your counterpart has not honored is simply the epitome of stupidity.

This is, I believe, the third time I've seen it listed as fact that Russia hasn't lived up to their treaty obligations. Is there a cite from some reliable news site that Russia has failed to honor START and/or the predecessors?

[lifelongMOgal]

Russia Puts Off Final OK of START Treaty to January - FoxNews.com

[JazzyTallGuy]

Originally Posted by MiamiRob

lmao I think Russia is more concerned about reviving their econmy than nuking us!

You'd be correct.

[Katarina Witt]

Originally Posted by lifelongMOgal

Russia Puts Off Final OK of START Treaty to January - FoxNews.com

And your point is?

[JazzyTallGuy]

Originally Posted by TnHilltopper

The only objection I've seen thus far was the opening of our nuclear weapons to inspections. People are going banana's over this.

Funny that what American's will not tolerate they demand Iran to do or threaten to attack them.

Feel free to add your rationalizations...

Actually without this treaty we'd have no way to inspect and even secure Russian nuclear facilities. These facilties are potential terrorist targets to obtain weapons grade nuclear material.

The people that think this treaty makes us less secure are ignorant and uninformed. Damn near every living Secretary States and and National Security Advisor has come out strongly in favor of this treaty that includes those serving in Republican Administrations.

[lifelongMOgal]

Originally Posted by Katiana

And your point is?

[Jaggy001]

Originally Posted by lifelongMOgal

There is no point