• 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!

U.S.-Russia arms treaty to face GOP scrutiny in Senate

F107HyperSabr

DP Veteran
Joined
May 12, 2009
Messages
2,617
Reaction score
375
Location
Connecticut
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
U.S.-Russia arms treaty to face GOP scrutiny in Senate - CNN.com

U.S.-Russia arms treaty to face GOP scrutiny in Senate

I really hope that this treaty is examined and all of it's body cavities are examined with appropriate safety. Seriously I hope that this treaty is taken apart, turned inside out, upside down and whatever to make sure it is the right thing for us. I just hope that this is done for the best for the US and not just because the POTUS is a Democrat. I do not trust Russia, Russians, or KGB stooges and that is exactly who we signed this treaty with.

HTML:
Among them is Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, who said in a statement Thursday that the Obama administration "will need to meet three requirements if it expects favorable consideration of the START follow-on treaty.""The Senate will assess whether or not the agreement is verifiable, whether it reduces our Nation's ability to defend itself and our allies from the threat of nuclear armed missiles, and whether or not this administration is committed to preserving our own nuclear triad," McConnell said in a statement
 
You know the Russians don't actually eat children right?
 
Why not sign a treaty that gives the Russians what they couldn't otherwise get...strategic parity with the US?

And do it at the same the US is making the world less safe by further limiting it's use of nukes as a deterrent in pursuit of a nuke-free world.




"We wuv it"

Sincerely,
Iran
North Korea and our friends the
Russians.

:doh
 
Why not sign a treaty that gives the Russians what they couldn't otherwise get...strategic parity with the US?

And do it at the same the US is making the world less safe by further limiting it's use of nukes as a deterrent in pursuit of a nuke-free world.




"We wuv it"

Sincerely,
Iran
North Korea and our friends the
Russians.

:doh

The updated rules on when we use nukes do not apply to states in violation of the NPT. Or to anyone, really, because they leave in the usual "Well this is our policy but we reserve the right to use the nukes if we really think it's necessary" clause.
 
We can't trust the Russian government. It would have been wise to create that nuclear defense shield. You can't irradiate nukes, but you can develop more efficient defenses against them. Obama's decision is foolish and his goals are unrealistic.
 
You know the Russians don't actually eat children right?

NO, actually I do not know that any more than you do.

The Russians albeit while they could and did repeatedly hide behind 'Soviet Union claim' murdered Millions of not just their own citizens but also the Citizens of other nations the 'Soviet Union' occupied.
Soviet Union was just a cover up name for Russia.
They cannot be trusted, they lie, they cheat, they steal, they kill.
Even up to the present day if one of their dissident speaks too loudly or into the wrong ears, Putin KGB/FSB will have that person killed.
 
Last edited:
The updated rules on when we use nukes do not apply to states in violation of the NPT. Or to anyone, really, because they leave in the usual "Well this is our policy but we reserve the right to use the nukes if we really think it's necessary" clause.

Funny...but if it's all about nothing, why are the Democrats and progressives applauding it?

Why would Obama waste his time if it's much ado about nothing?
 
I am betting that even if some nation who had signed NPT dropped a Nuke on USA, Obama would just shake his head and say 'must have been an accident'

Nukes are what keeps Russia and China in behind their own borders.

When will people realize Obama lives to his own beliefs, he refuses to accept any other beliefs, he refuses to accept that he may be wrong.
 
I am betting that even if some nation who had signed NPT dropped a Nuke on USA, Obama would just shake his head and say 'must have been an accident'

Nukes are what keeps Russia and China in behind their own borders.

When will people realize Obama lives to his own beliefs, he refuses to accept any other beliefs, he refuses to accept that he may be wrong.

No, no, no...Obama would apologize to them.
 
We can't trust the Russian government. It would have been wise to create that nuclear defense shield. You can't irradiate nukes, but you can develop more efficient defenses against them. Obama's decision is foolish and his goals are unrealistic.

Aside from the last guy in the Oval office, nuclear reduction has been an active goal of every US president since 1969. So are you saying the GW is the only guy we have elected president whose objectives were not foolish and were realistic? Interesting!
 
The GOP would vote or/and be against anything Obama does any ways, so it will not be a shocker or is a shocker that the GOP is against this.

Even with this deal, the US and Russia have enough nukes to kill off the world, costing billions to maintain for both countries at a time when those billions could be used elsewhere.
 
The GOP would vote or/and be against anything Obama does any ways, so it will not be a shocker or is a shocker that the GOP is against this.

Even with this deal, the US and Russia have enough nukes to kill off the world, costing billions to maintain for both countries at a time when those billions could be used elsewhere.

Although healthy skepticism and a careful examination is generally a good perspective from which to proceed, I worry that the heightened scrutiny may well be an expression of opposition to the President for the sake of opposition. If so, and time will tell, that will be an unproductive shift in which partisan divisions begin to play out on national security matters that are of vital interest to the United States.

FWIW, a number of notable former Republican Secretaries of State, including Henry Kissinger and George Schultz, support the agreement. Also, if one looks objectively at the agreement, it is difficult for one to find any evidence that the agreement qualitatively undermines the national security of either the U.S. or Russia. IMO, the agreement is in the national interest of both countries and it should be ratified by the Senate and Duma. Such important matters that concern the vital interests of the U.S. should not be hijacked by petty partisan rivalries/bids to 'settle scores.'
 
Why not sign a treaty that gives the Russians what they couldn't otherwise get...strategic parity with the US?

And do it at the same the US is making the world less safe by further limiting it's use of nukes as a deterrent in pursuit of a nuke-free world.


In case you hadn't heard, the Cold War is over, and terms like "nuclear parity" have no meaning. What does have meaning is that Alqaeda and other terror groups would pay a fortune for any one of the 3000 nuclear warheads currently being stored all over Russia, and those who guard them need the money. If we can cut the number of available warheads in half, I think "parity" is a small price to pay.
By the way, do you have any idea of the damage that the "parity" total of 1500 warheads on either side would do to the world? Do you actually place your partisan rhetoric ahead of intelligent arms control?
 
Although healthy skepticism and a careful examination is generally a good perspective from which to proceed, I worry that the heightened scrutiny may well be an expression of opposition to the President for the sake of opposition. If so, and time will tell, that will be an unproductive shift in which partisan divisions begin to play out on national security matters that are of vital interest to the United States.

FWIW, a number of notable former Republican Secretaries of State, including Henry Kissinger and George Schultz, support the agreement. Also, if one looks objectively at the agreement, it is difficult for one to find any evidence that the agreement qualitatively undermines the national security of either the U.S. or Russia. IMO, the agreement is in the national interest of both countries and it should be ratified by the Senate and Duma. Such important matters that concern the vital interests of the U.S. should not be hijacked by petty partisan rivalries/bids to 'settle scores.'

And? I have no doubt that the sane people in the Senate will vote yes for this, but I also have no doubt that a large part of the Republican party will vote no just out of spite and wanting to deny Obama a victory.
 
The GOP would vote or/and be against anything Obama does any ways, so it will not be a shocker or is a shocker that the GOP is against this.

Even with this deal, the US and Russia have enough nukes to kill off the world, costing billions to maintain for both countries at a time when those billions could be used elsewhere.

Their golden boy Reagan did exactly the same thing, but they'll still scream about WEAKENING AMERICA
 
Their golden boy Reagan did exactly the same thing, but they'll still scream about WEAKENING AMERICA

It should be entertaining to watch how they show a difference between what Ronnie did and what Barack has done.
 
It should be entertaining to watch how they show a difference between what Ronnie did and what Barack has done.

Seeing as how Ronnie talked openly about ridding the world of ALL nuclear weapons, they'll have to be pretty clever about it!
 
Seeing as how Ronnie talked openly about ridding the world of ALL nuclear weapons, they'll have to be pretty clever about it!

Should we even mention that Ronnie was seeking to reduce nukes during the Cold War? :cool:
 
In case you hadn't heard, the Cold War is over, and terms like "nuclear parity" have no meaning. What does have meaning is that Alqaeda and other terror groups would pay a fortune for any one of the 3000 nuclear warheads currently being stored all over Russia, and those who guard them need the money. If we can cut the number of available warheads in half, I think "parity" is a small price to pay.
By the way, do you have any idea of the damage that the "parity" total of 1500 warheads on either side would do to the world? Do you actually place your partisan rhetoric ahead of intelligent arms control?

You think Putin has let bygones be bygones?

Hell no he hasn't.
 
Back
Top Bottom