Thread: Obama aide: Debt limit fight could be "catastrophic"

Originally Posted by Jetboogieman

Oh Palease!

So you might have a few less Nukes, that's gonna be worth China invading and Beijing ending up a smouldering, uninhabitable wasteland.

Given the lack of testing any ICBM's, the dismantling over decades of our arsenal and the age of our aresenal, I'd be surprised if any of those nukes worked at all.

Originally Posted by Jetboogieman

I wasn't using anything Chris Matthews said as evidence. That point is null and void, I simply needed to use a clip which had Reagan saying what he said.

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?

Reagan, And Obamas treaties aren't that disimilar,

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?

and yes, it's a real shame you won't be able to Nuke Sweden.

Oh let's see, what was that you accused me of?...... Oh yeah..."Partisan grandstanding nonsense." uh huh.....

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.

True, but their methods of achieving that are so dissimilar as to make one dangerous.

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.

whatever helps you sleep at night dude.....

Who doesn't want a nuclear free world? Man shouldn't have the power to destroy the only home we have.

OMG, really? Thats it? Weak man.....


j-mac

Originally Posted by j-mac

This is crazy. this would be like me saying every time I get close to the limit on my credit cards, instead of paying them down, I call and have them raise the limits.....

j-mac

No, its more like as soon as you get close to the debt limit you call the bank and tell them you won't pay.... and then, to rub it in, you make it known that you recently turned down a raise (deferred scheduled revenue increases by cutting taxes, particularly to a group of people for which the tax reduction provides you will near zero benefit) that might have helped pay the bill. Unfortuately this has to happen (and will happen), to do otherwise is catasthrophic to our fledging economy.

Originally Posted by j-mac

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.





You can't address it in an intellectually honest way so you dismiss it. I see.





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?



Oh let's see, what was that you accused me of?...... Oh yeah..."Partisan grandstanding nonsense." uh huh.....




True, but their methods of achieving that are so dissimilar as to make one dangerous.



whatever helps you sleep at night dude.....



OMG, really? Thats it? Weak man.....


j-mac

ok, so regardless of all this petty bickering.

How does Obamas treaty in particular harm the United States? And how does it differ from other treaties. Why does Reagan get a pass on wanting a nuclear free world, but Obama doesn't?

Originally Posted by Jetboogieman

Please enlighten us, oh high horse conservative partisan.

Please show us the course of events, using Mutually Assured Destruction as the foundation of a war with the west, that would cause China to invade Canada

Two words - Molsen Canadian!

Nuff said..


Tim-

Originally Posted by Jetboogieman

ok, so regardless of all this petty bickering.

How does Obamas treaty in particular harm the United States? And how does it differ from other treaties. Why does Reagan get a pass on wanting a nuclear free world, but Obama doesn't?

Ok, here are the top 10 reasons....

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 turn....

j-mac

Originally Posted by j-mac

Ok, here are the top 10 reasons....



Your turn....

j-mac

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?

9. Making Russia a More Dominant Nuclear Power Is Bad Strategy.

How does it make Russia a Dominant Nuclear Power? How could their be such a thing when there is MAD?

8. Reagan Would Have Hated New START.

Unless you're gonna raise Reagan from the dead and ask him, that's anyone guess, and a poor point at that.

7. We Could All Die.

Really? Just because of this treaty Russia is gonna attack you?

6. Compromising on Missile Defense Is Bad.

This I actually may agree with.

5. Giving Away Secrets is Not Smart.

What secrets have been given away?

4. Compromising on Sovereignty is Not Good.

I'm sorry, does this treaty include Territorial concessions? Nope? Then what Sovereignty has been lost?

3. Abandoning “Trust But Verify” is a Mistake.

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

2. Letting Terrorists Get Their Hands on Nuclear Weapons is Suicidal.

How does this treaty do that?

1. Iran and North Korea Are the Real Danger.

The treaty does allow for Nuclear Weapons to be used against these two countries. This is not an actual point.

**** that was too easy.

Originally Posted by Jetboogieman

Your knocking me for having used Chris matthews without using chris matthews for the simple clip. And you're using "Conservative Policy News".

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.

How does it make Russia a Dominant Nuclear Power? How could their be such a thing when there is MAD?

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.

Unless you're gonna raise Reagan from the dead and ask him, that's anyone guess, and a poor point at that.

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.

Really? Just because of this treaty Russia is gonna attack you?

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.

This I actually may agree with.

Good we agree.

continued...

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.

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.

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

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.

How does this treaty do that?

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.

The treaty does allow for Nuclear Weapons to be used against these two countries. This is not an actual point.

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.

**** that was too easy.

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.


j-mac