• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama aide: Debt limit fight could be "catastrophic"

Jetboogieman said:
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?
Click to expand...


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.
Click to expand...

Your turn....

j-mac
 
j-mac said:
Ok, here are the top 10 reasons....



Your turn....

j-mac
Click to expand...


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.
Click to expand...
\

How does the treaty make your Nuclear Weapons systems unreliable?

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

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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

6. Compromising on Missile Defense Is Bad.
Click to expand...

This I actually may agree with.

5. Giving Away Secrets is Not Smart.
Click to expand...

What secrets have been given away?

4. Compromising on Sovereignty is Not Good.
Click to expand...

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

3. Abandoning “Trust But Verify” is a Mistake.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

How does this treaty do that?

1. Iran and North Korea Are the Real Danger.
Click to expand...

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

**** that was too easy.
 
Jetboogieman said:
Your knocking me for having used Chris matthews without using chris matthews for the simple clip. And you're using "Conservative Policy News".
Click to expand...


Just fightin' fire with fire.....Problem?


Lets break this down shall we.
Click to expand...


I can't think of anything more enjoyable.


How does the treaty make your Nuclear Weapons systems unreliable?
Click to expand...


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?
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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?
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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?
Click to expand...


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?
Click to expand...


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
Click to expand...

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?
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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
 
Chappy said:
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.
Click to expand...

something of substance to add? huh? no......thought so.


j-mac
 
something on topic to offer? huh? no… thought so.

Chappy
 
Chappy said:
something on topic to offer? huh? no… thought so.

Chappy
Click to expand...


If you'd actually read the thread instead of searching for bombs to throw, you'd see that this side debate, actually does indeed have to do with debt and the thread in general. But if it bothers you so much to actually enlighten yourself with the details of this then there is a function that allows you to jump out of this thread and into another right there on your screen....Find it.


j-mac
 
There's the New Thread button; I suggest you use it. Or, better yet, why not find an existing thread about the New START treaty. Lord knows it's been discussed to death. Most laughable of all is that the debate is over, treaty approved, world saved. Thank you, Barack Obama.


These conservatives who want to hold the nation hostage over the debt ceiling are irresponsible at best and insane at worst.
 
Chappy said:
There's the New Thread button; I suggest you use it. Or, better yet, why not find an existing thread about the New START treaty. Lord knows it's been discussed to death. Most laughable of all is that the debate is over, treaty approved, world saved. Thank you, Barack Obama.


These conservatives who want to hold the nation hostage over the debt ceiling are irresponsible at best and insane at worst.
Click to expand...


You have this post http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...ght-could-catastrophic-11.html#post1059196383 to thank for the derailment of the thread, but hey, can't attack a fellow traveler can we now....


j-mac
 
The last time the Republicans used the debt ceiling to attempt to extort concessions from the president, it cost the American people $800 million.¹
 
Chappy said:
The last time the Republicans used the debt ceiling to attempt to extort concessions from the president, it cost the American people $800 million.¹
Click to expand...


800 million eh, in salaries unpaid during the shut down as Ms. Webley of Time, and possible JournOlister fame reports.....Funny how she leaves out soooooo much of what those shut downs caused that were good for the country.

I say shut it down, and then lay off about half the clingon's there now.


j-mac
 
Chappy said:
The last time the Republicans used the debt ceiling to attempt to extort concessions from the president, it cost the American people $800 million.¹
Click to expand...

Funny enough, the last few times the republicans under Bush wanted to raise the debt ceiling, Obama voted no or didn't vote at all. Funny how things change.
 
Obama voted against raising the debt ceiling when he was a senator. Thus, Obama cannot complain if other senators follow his example.
 
buck said:
Funny enough, the last few times the republicans under Bush wanted to raise the debt ceiling, Obama voted no or didn't vote at all. Funny how things change.
Click to expand...

Such is the nature of must-pass legislation; people vote against it after assuring themselves that there's enough votes to pass it.

The Republicans control the House; it's their turn to govern responsibly; it is Mr. Boehner's task to make sure this must-pass legislation gets passed.
 
Last edited:
Chappy said:
Such is the nature of must-pass legislation; people vote against it after assuring themselves that there's enough votes to pass it.
Click to expand...

Yes, and then they can go on about how fiscally conservative they are, and how they voted against the debt, unless, of course, they get elected president and have to face reality.

Chappy said:
The Republicans control the House; it's their turn to govern responsibly; it is Mr. Boehner's task to make sure this must-pass legislation gets passed.
Click to expand...

And the Senate, controlled by Democrats, has to approve it as well.

I wonder what will really happen if they don't pass this legislation? Will it really be a disaster, or will they finally have to to face economic reality?
 
Dittohead not! said:
… I wonder what will really happen if they don't pass this legislation? Will it really be a disaster, or will they finally have to to face economic reality?
Click to expand...

One can anticipate that hitting one's thumb with a hammer will hurt without actually hitting one's thumb with a hammer. Same thing with the debt ceiling. Even Mr. FreedomWorks himself, Dick Armey believes that the debt ceiling must be increased.¹
 
Chappy said:
One can anticipate that hitting one's thumb with a hammer will hurt without actually hitting one's thumb with a hammer. Same thing with the debt ceiling. Even Mr. FreedomWorks himself, Dick Armey believes that the debt ceiling must be increased.¹
Click to expand...

Who gives a damn what Dick Armey says? The people voted for a stop to this very thing. That is exactly what november was about.
 
Chappy said:
One can anticipate that hitting one's thumb with a hammer will hurt without actually hitting one's thumb with a hammer. Same thing with the debt ceiling. Even Mr. FreedomWorks himself, Dick Armey believes that the debt ceiling must be increased.¹
Click to expand...

When was the last time you agreed with Dick Armey? Interesting that you and others use Conservatives when they say something you agree with. The issue is much bigger than this. The current spending levels are unsustainable and are going to exceed GDP this year. That is a huge issue and is being swept under the rug.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom