• 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!

Russia nears arms pact approval, warns on pullout

Deuce said:
The treaty does not outlaw missile defense systems.
Click to expand...

Deuce said:
The treaty doesn't even limit missile defense, it just says we should maybe promise to talk about missile defense at some undetermined point.
Click to expand...

Deuce said:
Is a reduction in strategic nuclear weapons somehow difficult to understand?

There's no good reason for us to have enough nukes to blow up the world three times. Surely once or twice is enough.



The treaty does nothing to harm missile defense.

It's always so bizarre to watch how the right-wing echo chamber just fabricates things and people accept it.
Click to expand...

That didn't take long.
 
Last edited:
So we know that Obama was either duped by the Russians or lied to the American people. I have already proven that.

Which do you think it was?
 
Wiseone said:
Ya except when it doesn't, like say after START...
Click to expand...

So would you say that you see the Start Treaty as an agreement (in the gun faceoff scenario) between the two of us to slowly lay our guns down at the same time? If so, what will we do about all the other people in the world who would like to kill us and are building their own guns?
 
Funny how the critters scatter when the lights come on isn’t it?

I’m going to bed.
 
GPS_Flex said:
That didn't take long.
Click to expand...

None of our existing missile defenses are "outlawed" by the treaty, which is what that discussion was about. We don't have to dismantle one single piece of our missile defense system. I even stated my reason for supporting the treaty in one of the posts you quoted.

So, what do you think you've proven about my reasons for supporting the treaty, exactly?
 
GPS_Flex said:
Funny how the critters scatter when the lights come on isn’t it?

I’m going to bed.
Click to expand...

Gee, I wonder why Deuce stopped replying...
 
The amendments stipulate that Russia could withdraw if military deployments or even plans by the United States or NATO jeopardize its security.
They highlight lingering rifts over U.S. plans for a European anti-missile shield and Russian concerns over other weapons it fears the United States or NATO could deploy.
Click to expand...

I find this entirely fine, seeing as how there is no need for a US missile defense shield in Europe, seeing as how the Cold War ended 20 years ago. Russia has a right to be worried about the US missile defense system, which is aimed at Russia, look here.
 
Deuce said:
None of our existing missile defenses are "outlawed" by the treaty, which is what that discussion was about. We don't have to dismantle one single piece of our missile defense system. I even stated my reason for supporting the treaty in one of the posts you quoted.

So, what do you think you've proven about my reasons for supporting the treaty, exactly?
Click to expand...

I really wasn’t as interested in “proving [your] reasons” for supporting the treaty as much as I was in understanding whether or not you agreed with Obama when he told the American People that the treaty wouldn’t limit missile defense.


There were attempts in the Senate to strike all or parts of paragraph 9 of the preamble but they were defeated by a simple majority of Democrats. Prior to ratification in the Senate, Obama assured the American people, and the Senate, that there were no constraints on testing, development or deployment of US missile defense programs.


Deuce said:
Both sides agree that existing defensive weapons to not undermine the offensive capabilities of existing stockpiles. Ergo, the treaty does not outlaw missile defense systems.
Click to expand...



Unfortunately, the comments by the chairman of the Russian Duma make clear that you were both wrong. I’m not questioning your motives. Our President told us it wouldn’t be an issue and you believed him. I understand and respect that.


I’m more interested in whether you think the President was tricked by the Russians or whether he knew that missile defense was constrained by this treaty and chose to lie to us about it.
 
Last edited:
Mr. Invisible said:
I find this entirely fine, seeing as how there is no need for a US missile defense shield in Europe, seeing as how the Cold War ended 20 years ago. Russia has a right to be worried about the US missile defense system, which is aimed at Russia, look here.
Click to expand...

Are you Russian or American?
 
GPS_Flex said:
I really wasn’t as interested in “proving [your] reasons” for supporting the treaty as much as I was in understanding whether or not you agreed with Obama when he told the American People that the treaty wouldn’t limit missile defense.


There were attempts in the Senate to strike all or parts of paragraph 9 of the preamble but they were defeated by a simple majority of Democrats. Prior to ratification in the Senate, Obama assured the American people, and the Senate, that there were no constraints on testing, development or deployment of US missile defense programs.






Unfortunately, the comments by the chairman of the Russian Duma make clear that you were both wrong. I’m not questioning your motives. Our President told us it wouldn’t be an issue and you believed him. I understand and respect that.


I’m more interested in whether you think the President was tricked by the Russians or whether he knew that missile defense was constrained by this treaty and chose to lie to us about it.
Click to expand...

And other comments made by other people make it clear that I was right. I made up my own damn mind about the treaty, unlike the folks who went with DEMOCRAT PRESIDENT = BAD TREATY
 
Deuce said:
And other comments made by other people make it clear that I was right. I made up my own damn mind about the treaty, unlike the folks who went with DEMOCRAT PRESIDENT = BAD TREATY
Click to expand...

I respect the fact that you aren’t too partisan to think outside the pre-defined box political parties try to keep us in but I’m more interested, at this time, in whether you think Obama lied to us or whether you think the Russians duped him.


If you want to make a distinction between your reasons for supporting this treaty and his reasons for supporting it, I’m all ears.
 
GPS_Flex said:
I respect the fact that you aren’t too partisan to think outside the pre-defined box political parties try to keep us in but I’m more interested, at this time, in whether you think Obama lied to us or whether you think the Russians duped him.
Click to expand...

I think it's all posturing and this will in no way limit our efforts to defend outselves from the likes of North Korea and Iran, and that defending ourselves against Russia's arsenal is a pipe dream in the first place, not to mention nearly suicidal to even attempt.


If you want to make a distinction between your reasons for supporting this treaty and his reasons for supporting it, I’m all ears.
Click to expand...

Less nukes makes us safer. End of story. That's why I support the treaty.
 
"Americans have been taught that their nation is civilized and humane. But, too often, U.S. actions have been uncivilized and inhumane."
~Howard Zinn


"Dissent is the highest form of patriotism."
...Howard Zinn
 
Deuce said:
BAD TREATY
Click to expand...

It's a meaningless treaty, except for the fact that for the first time offensive and defensive ballistic missiles are formally tied together. That is the sole problem with the treaty. All foreseeable problems flow from that fact.
 
Albert Di Salvo said:
"Americans have been taught that their nation is civilized and humane. But, too often, U.S. actions have been uncivilized and inhumane."
~Howard Zinn


"Dissent is the highest form of patriotism."
...Howard Zinn
Click to expand...

And the point of posting this is...?
 
Mr. Invisible said:
And the point of posting this is...?
Click to expand...

Your signature reminded me of other things Zinn has said. I wanted to draw your attention to the irony of life in that the words of this dead leftist ideologue, pretend historian, are now being used by the Right against the Left. "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism." :)
 
The Rooskies can pull out at any time?

Doesn't sound like much of a treaty, to me.

Obama really went along with this?
 
Deuce said:
I think it's all posturing and this will in no way limit our efforts to defend outselves from the likes of North Korea and Iran, and that defending ourselves against Russia's arsenal is a pipe dream in the first place, not to mention nearly suicidal to even attempt.


Less nukes makes us safer. End of story. That's why I support the treaty.
Click to expand...

I asked a straight forward question (several times) that you obviously refuse to answer. Like I said, we won’t move forward with the discussion you obviously want to direct us toward until you have enough integrity to deal with the topic of this post and my question.

Saying that you “think it is all posturing” doesn’t answer the question, does it?
 
Mr. Invisible said:
I am an American. Born and raised in New Jersey.
Click to expand...

Go Jets!!!


I had to ask because I just don’t see why an American would think there is no need for a missile defense shield in Europe seeing as how Russia still has the nukes it had during the Cold War and even more nations in the world have, or will soon have, nukes that can hit our American Allies.

It was the last sentence of your post that piqued my interest most and made me think you might be Russian rather than American: “Russia has a right to be worried about the US missile defense system, which is aimed at Russia”

Maybe I’m wrong here but I would think that most Americans would be more concerned with the safety of Americans and America’s allies than they would with Russia’s worries. I just don’t understand why you would take a position like this.
 
Last edited:
apdst said:
The Rooskies can pull out at any time?

Doesn't sound like much of a treaty, to me.

Obama really went along with this?
Click to expand...

It isn’t uncommon to have such “pull out” provisions in a treaty though. In fact, it would be rare if such a provision were omitted.

On the flip side, most treaties do a lot more to detail the justification for a “pull out” than this one.
 
GPS_Flex said:
Go Jets!!!


I had to ask because I just don’t see why an American would think there is no need for a missile defense shield in Europe seeing as how Russia still has the nukes it had during the Cold War and even more nations in the world have, or will soon have, nukes that can hit our American Allies.

It was the last sentence of your post that piqued my interest most and made me think you might be Russian rather than American: “Russia has a right to be worried about the US missile defense system, which is aimed at Russia”

Maybe I’m wrong here but I would think that most Americans would be more concerned with the safety of Americans and America’s allies than they would with Russia’s worries. I just don’t understand why you would take a position like this.
Click to expand...

I am concerned for the safety of our allies and ourselves, but I also respect Russia and its sovereignty. I find it hard to believe that Russia would go and attack our European allies as there is no reason to, especially since Russia gives a lot of natural gas to our western European allies, as can be seen [url="http://www.eia.doe.gov/cabs/russia/full.html]here[/url].
 
Last edited:
Mr. Invisible said:
I am concerned for the safety of our allies and ourselves, but I also respect Russia and its sovereignty. I find it hard to believe that Russia would go and attack our European allies as there is no reason to, especially since Russia gives a lot of natural gas to our western European allies, as can be seen [url="http://www.eia.doe.gov/cabs/russia/full.html]here[/url].
Click to expand...

You certainly have a lot more faith in the very secretive and oppressive government, run by a former KGB boss, than I do. If Russia hadn’t taken such a leap back towards despotism rule I would probably be more sympathetic to their concerns but Russia has/is helping other despot nations get nukes (China, Cuba, Iran, Venezuela, and Pakistan) and still takes every opportunity it gets to poke a sharp stick in the eye of the US and NATO. If you think Russia no longer considers the US an adversary then you are mistaken.


If everyone knows that missile defenses will never work, why would Russia be so opposed to them? Why is Russia so adamantly opposed to them being stationed in Europe?

Perhaps Russia opposes them so vigorously because it knows they could/will work against nations that don’t have 1000+ missiles? If missile defenses can negate the threat of Pakistani or Iranian or North Korean nuclear strikes on the US or our allies, Russia loses influence and power.
 
GPS_Flex said:
You certainly have a lot more faith in the very secretive and oppressive government, run by a former KGB boss, than I do. If Russia hadn’t taken such a leap back towards despotism rule I would probably be more sympathetic to their concerns but Russia has/is helping other despot nations get nukes (China, Cuba, Iran, Venezuela, and Pakistan) and still takes every opportunity it gets to poke a sharp stick in the eye of the US and NATO. If you think Russia no longer considers the US an adversary then you are mistaken.


If everyone knows that missile defenses will never work, why would Russia be so opposed to them? Why is Russia so adamantly opposed to them being stationed in Europe?

Perhaps Russia opposes them so vigorously because it knows they could/will work against nations that don’t have 1000+ missiles? If missile defenses can negate the threat of Pakistani or Iranian or North Korean nuclear strikes on the US or our allies, Russia loses influence and power.
Click to expand...

Proof that

"Russia has/is helping other despot nations get nukes (China, Cuba, Iran, Venezuela, and Pakistan)" [As far as I have seen, there has yet to be any definitive proof that Iran is trying to obtain nuclear weapons, only that they are enriching uranium, which is their right as a signatory of the NNPT

Affirming the principle that the benefits of peaceful applications of nuclear technology, including any technological by-products which may be derived by nuclear-weapon States from the development of nuclear explosive devices, should be available for peaceful purposes to all Parties to the Treaty, whether nuclear-weapon or non-nuclear-weapon States
Click to expand...
Source

Also, I think that Russia is opposed to the missile defense system because it threatens their sovereignty, especially when you look at how the US is doing things such as re-arming Georgia and how the US/NATO has moved into the Baltic.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom