1 Obama hasn't pushed anything that's in America's best interest.  This would be a first.

2 How many Senators will we have?  47?  Yeah, I don't see it mattering much if the Lame Duck handles this one or the New Senate in '11.

See, we already know that the Democrats are hyper-partisan (even when it will get them unelected: see: BOHICACare).  So, unless the Republicans are going to Filibuster a Treaty (yeah, right) it'll pass "Advise and Consent" with 53 just as well as it would with 58.

Unless Treaties require 60- in which case it still doesn't matter, 'Cause we've got our 42.

3 This is chicken crap.

4 Do we have to pass the treaty to see what's in it? Or is that just for Nancy's money holes?

5 RESET

START

STOP

6 I suspect this is a way to back-door a missile-defense limitation Bambi has a lot of experience with back-dooring the American people.

7

8 ot

9 Obaby is full of appeasement.  I'd vote no just knowing that.

10 Is this the same Russia that agreed to help against Iran in return for abandoing the missile defence in Poland?

Sure, we need to sign some more treaties with Putin.

11

If this treaty was soo fucking important why was it allowed to expire in Dec 2009?

If this treaty was soo fucking important why didn't Obama get off his ass to meet with the Russian president until April 2010? That's 4 months after it expired.

If this treaty was soo fucking important how did it not recieve attention in the Senate for 8 months after negotiations in April?

12 Hope saying that wasn't too bold.

13 Considering the number of retirees and losers sitting in seats at the moment, the idea that it would even be presented is absurd. So much for the will of the people.

14 Treaties require 2/3s. Come January this is toast so it's now or never.

15 There are no depths that these scumbags will not sink to.

16 Why the fuck are we going for a START Treaty? The Cold War is dead and gone. The threat of nuclear war is distant as shit.

17 Bolton running for president. Just announced.

18

What Would The Moustache Do?

19 Bolton just announced he's thinking about running and will announce in mid 2011.

Perhaps a more accurate statement.  Sorry for the absolute statement above.

20 Why the fuck are we going for a START Treaty? The Cold War is dead and gone. The threat of nuclear war is distant as shit.

Between us and Russia, anyway.  It's probably best for us if Russia hangs onto it's nukes in case they run afoul of China first.  Or suffer something more severe than Beslan.

21 @11 - 'Cause he was still hoping he'd be able to find some way to vote "present" on it in 2009.

@15 - Then why do they think it'll pass now?  Do we have 9 Senators who'll side with Russia on this one?  Have that many deluded themselves to think that this limits Russia in any significant way?

22 These fools really need to stop treating Reagan like a god.

23 >>>Why the fuck are we going for a START Treaty? The Cold War is dead and gone. The threat of nuclear war is distant as shit. No it's not! How can you think that? things don't change. Or in this case, they did change, but they changed back. The bad old Soviet Union is back. I like treaties of this type (not this one) for the inspection angle and for being to keep a basic eye on where the uranium from old, decommissioned missiles is going. Like, not to jihadists, is my first goal. The Russian state is a frigging basket case, man. Who the hell knows what could happen here. The fewer missiles in the hands of drunken primitive Kossacks the better. Even if it means giving up some of ours. Because we're not gonna sell ours to terrorists to make a buck. So in general, I think these things are helpful.

24 If this is so important why does it need to be done quickly? Stupid Party, the time has come for you to grow a pair and obstruct, stall, delay this with every ounce of energy you possess. Except for you McCain: just be your awesome Maverick self, you arrogant ignorant prick.

25 The Russian Bear was only wounded in the 80s.  It's still alive, and a bear.

26

"At the very least, this debate needs to be delayed until the real, elected Senate is seated, rather than the voted-out non-Senators there now."

Sorry Ace, I don't follow. The Senators that are there, now, were elected. It may have been 6 years ago and they may have just been voted out of office, but they are still Senators until their term is up.

That being said, I agree that the only need to rush something of this magnitude through is because you know it won't get passed next year.

27 Obama signed off on this treaty right? Enough said.

28 Why does Obama want this? Really.

29 Obama signed off on this treaty right? Enough said.

My reaction exactly.

30 Man, I sure am glad the Russians keep their word.

31

This treaty has a stupid preamble, and does nothing to deal with the states that are acquiring weapons,  two of which are actively supporting terrorism and two who have fought each other three times within the last 50 years.

 

If we think that we need to have a treaty for cooperation regarding safeguarding and handling nuclear materials, then do thiat, if something doesn't already exist. What the hell happened to the IEC?

This is yet another cold war hold over. It's funny how the left loved complaining about every aspect of the cold war, and now reveres it. We were told that bold new thinking ws required. And now we have people invoking the corpse of Ronie Raygun, the man they said would lead us into war. Reading about the importance of MAD in a Diocesian newspaper is nothing short of a trip through the looking glass.

32 Here's an analysis of the various flaws of the START treaty done by the Heritage Foundation:

Twelve Flaws of New START That Will Be Difficult to Fix

33 Posted by: ace © at December 02, 2010 03:24 PM (nj1bB)

I agree that the inspections are good, but limiting our own fighting prowess to appease a lesser power is silly.  Yes, Putin wants to bring Mother Russia back to life, but they just don't have all the same advantages they did during the height of the cold war.  With the collapse of the Soviet Union and the fragmenting of the old Soviet States, Moscow just doesn't have as much force to bring to bare as they once did.

If we had to have a war now it would be bad, but it wouldn't be the global killer that everyone feared from the 50's to the 90's.  Unless one side or the other really did launch nukes- but even with this treaty (or any before it) each nation would have enough warheads to depopulate the civilized world, so this isn't even helping that.

34 We the people of Brattleboro think NUclear weapons serve no purpose. We support President Obama and think that the USA should unilateralley get rid of Nuclear Weapons. We need to show more love then hate !!!

35

Flaw #4: New START counts conventional “prompt global strike” weapons against the numerical limits imposed on nuclear arms.

 

Why in Hell are conventional weapons included in a strategic nuclear weapons treaty?

36 If we had to have a war now it would be bad, but it wouldn't be the global killer that everyone feared from the 50's to the 90's.

I don't think we have multi-megaton city killers in our arsenal anymore, though the Russians might.  Our improved accuracy made smaller counterforce nukes good enough.

37 A Start Treaty without verification is like penetration without lubrication.

38 We need to show more love then hate !!!

Posted by: Mary Cloggerstien from Brattleboro, VT

 

Agreed. You can start by reducing the cost of maple syrup by 50%.

39

Kissinger is a shmuck. And probably an evil shmuck, at that. And Nixon was (and Kissinger is) a republican in the mold of Lincoln Chafee and T. Codington Van Vorhees III.

If he mentions Reagan, then you know he's lying.

But hey, it's Kissinger. If he opens his mouth you know he's lying.

And when he's on the side of Colin Powell, well now you know, gentleman, regardless of what's best or what actually happens, they they'll be drinking only Beefeater martinis at the diplomatic conferance, and dressed sharply too, and isn't that what's REALLY important?

40 34 This treaty has a stupid preamble, and does nothing to deal with the states that are acquiring weapons,  two of which are actively supporting terrorism and two who have fought each other three times within the last 50 years.

Ironic that the Russians are helping several rogue nations (Iran and Venezuela come to mind) acquire nuclear capabilities, da?

41 I don't this the US should engage in any kind of treaty that limits our defense options. Especially when it has the approval of Obama and no doubt his master Soros. Neither has the best interests of this country at heart.

42 I don't think... etc

43

TiredWench's Ninth Rule of Geopolitics: If Howard Baker is for it, I'm against it.

44 Every Journey begins with a single step.

45 Oops. Make that James Baker.

46 We can't afford to wait another minute for the enemy© to fold, fellow Dems.  Divert Holder's plane to Moscow to negotiate for us.

47

Why are we even discussing this claptrap?  START?  WTF?

I've said it before: Barack Obama is living in 1983.

48 A quick look at Wiki, fwiw, says that we have no missile warheads over 500 kilotons, and only the B83 gravity bomb at a max of 1.2 megaton yield.

49 49 Oops. Make that James Baker.

Fuck the Jews.  They don't vote for us anyway.

-A^4.

50 Lets see, we needed stimulus real quick to keep unemployment under 8%.
That worked good.
We needed Obamacare to keep costs down and to keep our own doctors if we wanted.
Another winnah!
We needed to get rid of the missile shield in Eastern Europe so that Russia wood help us with Iran.
OOPS!
So far rushing things hasn't worked out too well.
Unless your Russian.
 

51

We have already neutralized too many warheads, and given away material that we no longer have the power to produce. I should go over that several times: WE CANNOT make this stuff anymore. We are out of that business, and paid billions to get there. We have to get by, for a lifetime, on what we have now. 

We just barely have enough Magic Dust left to make a standard arsenal of newer, smaller, safer warheads for "conventional" nuclear warfare, and if we should, in a rare moment of rationality, decide to go ahead with tiny little warheads that can be used in unexpected (by our enemies) new tactics, we are, as we stand right now, short of the stuff that we allow Nork and Iran to turn out at will.

We have got to get "On The Beach" and "The Day After" out of our consciousness, stop feeling deep down that we were the big meanie in the cold war, and start acting like we live under an existential threat from several sources. And put the fucking wings back on the B-52's, in whose shadow we all grew up in peace and confidence.

Either that, or stop talking like a latter-day super power. 'Cuz we ain't.

52 the new START has more holes that Swiss cheese.............

( thank you ladies and gentlemen.......thank you very much............ )

plus, the first sentence of your post insults six-year old girls everywhere

53 Now more than ever, we need the ion cannon seen in Command & Conquer.

54

Why are we even considering a treaty when Russia is actively helping nations that promote terrorism to acquire nuclear weapons?

 

Or why is this not an essential part of that treaty?

55 TiredWench's Ninth Rule of Geopolitics: If Howard James Baker is for it, I'm against it. Posted by: TiredWench at December 02, 2010 03:43 PM (oPceJ) As amended, a handy rule of thumb.

56

Kissinger is a shmuck.

Posted by: Entropy at December 02, 2010 03:40 PM (IsLT6)

Kissinger started out as a protege of Nelson Rockefeller,

NUFF SED.

57 But what if the Russians promise to keep this treaty.  I mean really really promise this time.  You know.  Cross their heart and hope to die.  C'mon people.  Give 'ole Putin a chance.  Remember.  He's eaten BBQ with Bush.

58 WTF?  The Warcock will not take this lying down.  Sounds like a politically-motivated witch-hunt to me. 

Nigeria to charge former U.S. VP Dick Cheney in pipeline bribery case - VOA http://bit.ly/hwZWLS

59 Either that, or stop talking like a latter-day super power. 'Cuz we ain't.

You have nailed Obama's agenda. We are one nation among the rest. Nothing special.

60 63 But what if the Russians promise to keep this treaty.  I mean really really promise this time.  You know.  Cross their heart and hope to die.  C'mon people.  Give 'ole Putin a chance.  Remember.  He's eaten BBQ with Bush.

Sure, because Bush looked into Putie-Put's eyes and saw his soul.  And the Russians love their children too...*rolls eyes*.

How about this?  In the end, there will be only chaos.

61

Sure, because Bush looked into Putie-Put's eyes and saw his soul. 

 

Isn't that about the time that people started noticing how quickly W was aging?

 

62 Eh.  If the dims don't want missile "defense" then we will just have to settle for missile "offense". 

63 So as I understand this, the START Treaty is being rushed through since its only been around since early April.  And further, Senators are only elected for 5 years and 10 months and they really shouldn't do anything at the end of their term (is that the Sarah Palin approach to quitting before you finish your term?).  Interesting approach to government.

64 63 He's eaten BBQ with Bush.
Posted by: Soona at December 02, 2010 03:53 PM (GdqLE)

I have eaten bush with BBQ as well. The self-flossing characteristic lifted the pleasure to a whole 'nother level..

65 So as I understand this, the START Treaty is being rushed through since its only been around since early April.

Yep.  And they've been debating it since, er, well, they haven't started to debate it yet.

So, yeah.

66 Um, if the START Treaty is such a great deal for America, why can't it wait until the next Senate is seated? Surely its virtues will only be appreciated more the more as it is studied and debated.

67 And further, Senators are only elected for 5 years and 10 months and they really shouldn't do anything at the end of their term

Yep.  And since this Senate was only in session 104(2006)-167(2007) days a year, a couple of weeks aren't going to make much difference.

68 So, yeah.

69 Days in Session Calendars of our overworked Congresses.

70

Playing this game as though only the Russians have nuclear weapons and are our only potential nuclear adversary is insane.

Why should the U.S. have a treaty with Russia that limits the ability to be able to answer the threat that China is building?

71 Well crap, the 104-167 was for the House, though the Senate is similar and I'm not going to go to the trouble to cut and paste.  Click through yourselves.

72 If a lame duck Congress can pass major tax legislation, it can approve a freakin' treaty.

However.. if the Dems want it bad enough, they should take care of the taxes first.. Boehner is right in putting a hold on everything until taxes are settled.  And, as far as that goes, I really don't care if they wanna "compromise" and let the tax cuts expire on some higher income amount like over $1 Million or so.. 

But they need to get their asses in gear on the tax cuts.. Nuclear treaties that have been sitting around for nearly a year can surely wait.

73 Richard Perle

Isn't he the guy they tried to frame the Atlanta Olympics bombing on?  Or was that Richard Jewel......I'm so confused.

74

When it was signed, when it was presented to the Senate and when they commenced the ratification process can be three different times.  From what I've read, this is only now being taken up by the Seante. In December. A nuclear weapons treaty, and they're going to give it less time than Obamacare?

 

Fuck that. Give it to a Senate that doesn't isn't in the 4th quarter with a bench going on waivers.

75 Isn't he the guy they tried to frame the Atlanta Olympics bombing on?

You're thinking of Richard Pryor.

76

I'm really surprised that the Senate rules aren't such that just one Senator can delay legislation until after the lame duck session.  It's just one of the things I'd come to expect to see in Senate rules.

77 Isn't he the guy they tried to frame the Atlanta Olympics bombing on?

You're thinking of Richard Pryor.

Posted by: toby928

 

No, he invented the flame war. Accidentally.

78

#38, conventional kinetic-energy ICBM warheads would be counted under this treaty because they're on an ICBM that could then have a nuke warhead re-mated to it.

comatus, I find your ideas fascinating and hope you can find high office at which to employ them. If I had a hoot in hell of being President, you'd be one of the Morons I'd want to employ.

79

The basic problem with the START Treaty is that we live in an era of horizontal hyperproliferation.  That means nuclear weapons will soon be widespread.  When that happens, you don't want to be the only nation stupid enough to reduce your arsenal.  Sadly, this new reality almost certainly guarantees many nuclear wars in the not-so-distant future.  Korea, for one.  

Is there anything on which our super-genius president can't be bumblefucking wrong?  Some stupidity is so outrageous and obvious it takes years of education to achieve it. 

80

#38, conventional kinetic-energy ICBM warheads would be counted under this treaty because they're on an ICBM that could then have a nuke warhead re-mated to it.

Posted by: SGT Dan

 

Oh Christ, so we are back to the 70's. Are we counting warheads or launchers. This is what MIRV helped forment. That and the fact that the USSR had to build bigger launchers and warheads because they had a lower chance of getting near the target.

 

So we continue to screw with the two arsenals that aren't secret, while other nations deploy in secret, at least two of which are being helped by Russia.

 

Trash this piece of shit. This is for those who want to burnish credentials by being in the room when the latest START treaty was signed. They get to be an entry in Foreign Policy Review.

81

Nicest thing said to me all day, sarnt. I appreciate that.

It brings up a thought: Wouldn't our Mr Bolton, whom you can easily foresee as the greatest SecState in history, be wasted in that little oval office?

If it's the only job I can give him, OK I'm in. But I'd like to run a slate, with him in the spot where he could engender the most pants-pissing. With one twitch of the  'stache.

82 Isn't he the guy they tried to frame the Atlanta Olympics bombing on?

You're thinking of Richard Pryor.

Posted by: toby928

 

No, he invented the flame war. Accidentally.

Posted by: totally tasteless at December 02, 2010 04:50 PM (R2fpr)

Heh....Thanks for that.  Nice one.  Both of you.

83 The whole argument that Russia somehow needs a "deterrent" that would be compromised by our ABM defenses is BS. WHO in their right minds think we would attack Russia with nukes? Japan has no nukes - is there the slightest, remotest possibility we would ever attack Tokyo, or even hint that we might if we didn't get our way on something? Russia has a dirty conscience - and that's why it feels it needs a "deterrent" - so they can attack small nations like Georgia and perhaps Ukraine with impunity. Let's not play their game. Fuck Ivan.

84 Don't let's start START!

85 All I know is anachronistic arms control treaties are THE economic engine of America...

86 So once again, tell me how this assclown in the White House is NOT like Jimmy Carter.

87 the astroturf  is strong with this thread

88  fuck Obama and his restrictions on Ballistic Missile Defense. The pukes that just got  their walking papers handed to them should not vote on such an important issue inasmuch as they were just found wanting in their representation by their electors

89 hello everyone,im wholesale supplier  online

Welcome to our website   

=====   http://www.1shopping.us/    =======

accept paypal and free shipping

We need your support and trust!!!

Dear friends, please temporarily stop your footsteps

To our website Walk around A look at

Maybe you'll find happiness in your sight shopping heaven and earth

You'll find our price is more suitable for you.

And we shall be offer you free gift about MP4 if you more order.

=====   http://www.1shopping.us/   ========