Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why not take the time to debate the merits and shortcomings of this treaty on the Senate floor in January with the new Congress?
Why negotiate from a position of weakness rather than one of strength?
Why was this treaty necessary at this time?
Why negotiate a nuclear arms treaty with a nation who is actively assisting Iran in going nuclear?
Why negotiate a nuclear arms treaty with a nation who is actively selling arms to the dictator Hugo Chavez?
Why negotiate a treaty with a nation who invaded one of our allies, Georgia, in recent years?
This fool of a president and the fools in congress have signed away strength we had in our military forces. To ratify a treaty in the manner it was done is treasonous.
Every why you have posed was ignored by this administration and that act of ignorance of the facts regarding Russia is the most inexcusable act of treason O has taken thus far.
To negotiate our military superiority down in view of what Russia has been building up is appalling.
Allowing a lame duck congress to ratify this treaty is dangerous.
Russia does not sign treaties where they are on the 'losing' end.
How many here applauding this treaty - tell us and the world just how many treaties Russia has kept and abided by in the past?
I always find these discussions hilarious. Assuming a single nuclear warhead can destroy a metropolitan area, any given country only has about a dozen to two dozen metros that are of significant economic, political, and strategic importance anyway. And that's humouring the argument that we'll ever need enough nukes to screw the whole world 10x over.
LOL...i know, it's laughable.
The truth is this: the people on here against this treaty are not against the treaty based on its merits. They're against this looking like a success for Obama. I don't know why they just won't come out and say so cuz it's so stinkin' transparent.
Why not take the time to debate the merits and shortcomings of this treaty on the Senate floor in January with the new Congress?
\
Because Republicans have sworn to kill anything given them by the President, so whats the point of discussion something with people who have promised to kill it. If I put a gun to your head and say, I'll shoot you if you tell me your name, now tell me your name. Then I ask, why won't you tell me your name, duh... don't take my word, just google, "republicans vow to block president" and you will have your answer, the one you already knew.
Quote:
Why negotiate from a position of weakness rather than one of strength?
What evidence do you have that we are arguing from a position of weakness? What is the criteria you are using? Just make this sound byte up?
Quote:
Why was this treaty necessary at this time?
Why wasn't this treaty necessary last year, or the year before? Why did Ronald Reagan see fit to deem it necessary back in the late 1980's?
Quote:
Why negotiate a nuclear arms treaty with a nation who is actively assisting Iran in going nuclear?
We negotiate with China who assists Iran every day, why aren't you concerned about the US negotiating treaties with them? Have you protested by stopping the purchase of every Chinese made product?
Quote:
Why negotiate a nuclear arms treaty with a nation who is actively selling arms to the dictator Hugo Chavez?
China happens to sell them arms as well, again, see above.
Quote:
Why negotiate a treaty with a nation who invaded one of our allies, Georgia, in recent years?
Why do you deny the democratic independence of South Ossetia and Abkazia in favor of supporting a puppet regime that has a population on the verge of a coup. Not only that, this same population that broke away and declared its independence by the support of George Soros?
Since TheWon signed that treaty on April 8, 2010, according to the White House blog and we all know who runs that one, don't we, why wasn't this one debated in Congress before the Lame Duck session?
Jesus Christ. The 105th Congress impeached the president of the United States in a lame duck session.
LOL, real good luck with that. More senators voted for the treaty than would be required to remove the president.
The senate voted 71-26 in favor. A good many Republicans voted in favor. That is about as bipartisan as Washington gets. Truth is you will never please all the people all the time but, IMHO, the Senate got it right on this one.
This is actually one of the few smart things that Obama is doing,both the USA and Russia have way too many atomic bombs, reducing their number can only be a good thing.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
