“I think if Thomas Jefferson were looking down, the author of the Bill of Rights, on what’s being proposed here, he’d agree with it. He would agree that the First Amendment cannot be absolute.” - Chuck Schumer (D). Yet, Madison and Mason wrote the Bill of Rights, according to Sheila Jackson Lee, 400 years ago.
You type "Reagan ending Nukes" into Google and come back with over 1 million hits, and Matthews was who you chose in a partisan debate? poor choice man.
Partisan grandstanding nonsense.
You can't address it in an intellectually honest way so you dismiss it. I see.
So you completely ignore the fact that Republicans from days past, many republicans now, and simply many people believe It's a good treaty, because you know OH SO MUCH MORE then they do, and you obviously know exactly how Obamas trying to make America defenseless, and make it a force for evil in the world... or something, and your evidence for this is your own views.
Let's get a couple of things straight right here, and right now k? First, I never claimed, nor do I think that I know more than those working on this. Second, you are misrepresenting my thoughts and words here in a disingenuous fashion, stop it. And lastly, you are projecting here. This is debate, you are not going to win anything should your argument prevail, and the only evidence I have seen you put forth are your own views, so?
then what was the rub against letting the duly elected new congress have a look at it? If it was that good, and straight forward, a week would have made no difference. But no, Obama's narcism wouldn't let that happen would it?Reagan, And Obamas treaties aren't that disimilar,
Oh let's see, what was that you accused me of?...... Oh yeah..."Partisan grandstanding nonsense." uh huh.....and yes, it's a real shame you won't be able to Nuke Sweden.
True, but their methods of achieving that are so dissimilar as to make one dangerous.Get a grip man, please. You said simply that Obamas stated goal, was a nuclear free world. You never said he wanted to make America a force for evil, make America defenseless, or anything else.
whatever helps you sleep at night dude.....I simply showed you, that it was Reagans stated goal as well. You decided to bring up the whole Liberal Liberal Liberal nonsense you always do, when you know you've been proven wrong.
OMG, really? Thats it? Weak man.....Who doesn't want a nuclear free world? Man shouldn't have the power to destroy the only home we have.
“When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators.” - P. J. O’Rourke
“Socialism is great until you run out of someone elses money” Margaret Thatcher
Ok, here are the top 10 reasons....
Your turn....10. An Unreliable Nuclear Arsenal Is No Deterrent.
9. Making Russia a More Dominant Nuclear Power Is Bad Strategy.
8. Reagan Would Have Hated New START.
7. We Could All Die.
6. Compromising on Missile Defense Is Bad.
5. Giving Away Secrets is Not Smart.
4. Compromising on Sovereignty is Not Good.
3. Abandoning “Trust But Verify” is a Mistake.
2. Letting Terrorists Get Their Hands on Nuclear Weapons is Suicidal.
1. Iran and North Korea Are the Real Danger.
Top 10 Reasons Why New START Is A Non-Starter | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.
Your knocking me for having used Chris matthews without using chris matthews for the simple clip. And you're using "Conservative Policy News".
Lets break this down shall we.
\10. An Unreliable Nuclear Arsenal Is No Deterrent.
How does the treaty make your Nuclear Weapons systems unreliable?
How does it make Russia a Dominant Nuclear Power? How could their be such a thing when there is MAD?9. Making Russia a More Dominant Nuclear Power Is Bad Strategy.
Unless you're gonna raise Reagan from the dead and ask him, that's anyone guess, and a poor point at that.8. Reagan Would Have Hated New START.
Really? Just because of this treaty Russia is gonna attack you?7. We Could All Die.
This I actually may agree with.6. Compromising on Missile Defense Is Bad.
What secrets have been given away?5. Giving Away Secrets is Not Smart.
I'm sorry, does this treaty include Territorial concessions? Nope? Then what Sovereignty has been lost?4. Compromising on Sovereignty is Not Good.
This has ****all to do with anything. Prove its been abandoned. If this is above "We Could All Die" I have serious doubts as to the validity of this website and its views3. Abandoning “Trust But Verify” is a Mistake.
How does this treaty do that?2. Letting Terrorists Get Their Hands on Nuclear Weapons is Suicidal.
The treaty does allow for Nuclear Weapons to be used against these two countries. This is not an actual point.1. Iran and North Korea Are the Real Danger.
**** that was too easy.
Just fightin' fire with fire.....Problem?
Lets break this down shall we.
I can't think of anything more enjoyable.
How does the treaty make your Nuclear Weapons systems unreliable?
New START offers no assurance that the U.S. nuclear force will be an effective deterrent in the future. President Obama has already declared he won’t replace and modernize the nuclear arsenal. Yes, he said he would spend billions on the supporting infrastructure and called that “modernization.” But that’s like saying you’ll take your car to Jiffy-Lube and calling it a transportation system “modernization” initiative. Furthermore, Obama’s budget still underfunds our nuclear support structure — and delays most of the funding to out-years after the president’s term expires. Obama’s claim to the mantel of nuclear modernization is bogus.
Why empower a country that invades and threatens its neighbors and works everyday to extinguish the light of democracy within its borders? That’s what this treaty will do. The Russians will not walk hand-in-hand with President Obama the full length of the “road to zero” (a world without nuclear weapons). Nukes remain the cornerstone of Russia’s military and foreign relations strategy. Even before New START negotiations began, Moscow had made clear it planned to reduce its stockpiles of aging, strategic nuclear weapons, replacing them with a combination of upgraded strategic and tactical nukes. New START accommodates that plan quite nicely. Russia’s 10,000-plus tactical nuclear weapons (a 10-to-one advantage over NATO) are not covered by the treaty. Under New START, the U.S. cuts more weapons and launchers than Russia. Indeed, it allows Moscow to build more launchers. Bottom line: The treaty assures that Russia will one day have a qualitative and quantitative advantage over the U.S.How does it make Russia a Dominant Nuclear Power? How could their be such a thing when there is MAD?
Conservatives are for arms control. President Reagan negotiated the largest reduction in nuclear arsenals in history. But Reagan believed in a “protect and defend” strategy, maintaining a first-class nuclear arsenal and robust missile defense rather than leave the innocents of both sides hostage to the threat of nuclear holocaust. Reagan believed that if you devalued nuclear weapons, fewer nations would want them. President Obama explicitly rejects this approach. His strategy repudiates Reagan’s vision for how to achieve a nuclear-free world.Unless you're gonna raise Reagan from the dead and ask him, that's anyone guess, and a poor point at that.
Again and again, President Obama has cast New START as the first step on the “road to zero.” But by intentionally diminishing America’s stature as a nuclear power, the treaty effectively “lowers the bar” for other nations that might seek to become established nuclear powers. The perverse outcome of Obama’s “road to zero,” then, will be to encourage proliferation of nuclear weapons among more nations, not less. Pursuing nuclear disarmament in a proliferated world without employing missile defense and maintaining credible nuclear deterrence increases instability, which can lead to nuclear war. Moreover, it is likely that New START will fail to protect the U.S. and its allies from attack, to provide verification of existing programs, and to prevent nuclear proliferation.Really? Just because of this treaty Russia is gonna attack you?
Good we agree.This I actually may agree with.
Checking thread title, “Obama aide: Debt limit fight could be "catastrophic",” looking at recent posts; checking thread title again; so sad, so, very, very sad.
“Real environmentalists live in cities, and they visit what's left of the wilderness as gently and respectfully as possible.” — Donna Moulton, letter to the editor, Tucson Weekly, published on August 23, 2001
What secrets have been given away?
The treaty requires sharing Telemetric Information that includes missile defense test flight data. Russia might use that information to help devise ways to counter U.S. missile defenses. Or Moscow might share the data with countries like Iran.
I'm sorry, does this treaty include Territorial concessions? Nope? Then what Sovereignty has been lost?
The treaty creates an independent Bilateral Consultative Commission with a broad mandate to promote the objectives of the treaty. This broadly worded mandate could allow the Commission to impose additional restrictions on our missile defense program.
Reagan’s old arms control mantra is as apt and necessary as ever. We know the Russians have been cheating on implementation of arms control agreements for years. We also know that the combination of the Moscow Treaty and the original START agreement would have put in place a more comprehensive verification regime than what is in the New START agreement.This has ****all to do with anything. Prove its been abandoned. If this is above "We Could All Die" I have serious doubts as to the validity of this website and its views
Russia has thousands of tactical nuclear weapons that Bin Laden would love to get a hold of. The mass-murdering terrorist calls getting and using these weapons “a sacred goal.” New START does nothing to address Russia’s tactical nuclear weapons or the danger of nuclear terrorism. New START is like painting the house when you are worried about arsonists — investing a lot of effort in something that does not deal with the threat.How does this treaty do that?
These countries would love to have America in their nuclear cross-hairs. They are willing and able to proliferate materials, technology, and assistance to other adversarial countries. Their actions could well provoke nations friendly to the U.S. (countries no longer confident that our shrinking nuclear umbrella is sufficient to protect them) to develop independent nuclear weapons programs of their own as a countermeasure. President Obama’s myopic focus on hashing out a New START treaty that will have the Nobel Awards committee high-fiving ignores these greater threats. Russia has done nothing of substance to help slow the Iranian nuclear program. And China is using Russia’s revitalization of its strategic nuclear arsenal as an excuse to step-up its own modernization program. Just last week we learned that North Korea has a lot more nuclear capability than we thought.The treaty does allow for Nuclear Weapons to be used against these two countries. This is not an actual point.
It may have seemed easy for you to ignore the Heritage Foundation assertions by not reading them, and instead just trying to poke holes in them, but now you must respond to the answers directly.**** that was too easy.