• 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!

Will they ratify the nuclear limitation treaty?

Chappy said:
Let's begin with accepting the new treaty. ;)
Click to expand...

We'll use it as a weapon to teach a lesson to the Republican senators that voted to circumscribe missile defenses. They will have to defend that charge. That fact in and of itself imposes a cost on them, and gives them pause to think. Richard Lugar will be the first.
 
Chappy said:
Let's begin with accepting the new treaty. ;)
Click to expand...

Right. As if you can explain why you want it other than "Obama negotiated it."
 
Harshaw said:
Right. As if you can explain why you want it other than "Obama negotiated it."
Click to expand...

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.

Albert Di Salvo said:
We'll use it as a weapon to teach a lesson to the Republican senators that voted to circumscribe missile defenses. They will have to defend that charge. That fact in and of itself imposes a cost on them, and gives them pause to think. Richard Lugar will be the first.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
Perhaps you guys should let Chappy respond, if he can.
 
Deuce said:
...
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...

The problem is the way the Preamble of the Treaty is interpreted by the Russians. The Russians have stated that the Preamble of the Treaty gives them the right to withdraw from the Treaty if the US increases missile defenses in a way which decreases the effectiveness of their offensive missiles.

If the US pursues the full blown four layer type of missile defenses in order to protect the country against North Korean or Iranian ballistic missiles the Russians will threaten to withdraw from the Treaty. That means that a future president will be deterred from fully defending the country from ballistic missiles.

The only reason you support the Treaty is out of blind loyalty to the Bamster. No one has yet responded to my question about why the Preamble of the Treaty ties offensive missiles and defensive missiles together? I bet that's because it can't be justified from an American standpoint.

Edit: This Treaty will bring heartbreak to America.
 
Last edited:
Albert Di Salvo said:
The problem is the way the Preamble of the Treaty is interpreted by the Russians. The Russians have stated that the Preamble of the Treaty gives them the right to withdraw from the Treaty if the US increases missile defenses in a way which decreases the effectiveness of their offensive missiles.

If the US pursues the full blown four layer type of missile defenses in order to protect the country against North Korean or Iranian ballistic missiles the Russians will threaten to withdraw from the Treaty. That means that a future president will be deterred from fully defending the country from ballistic missiles.

The only reason you support the Treaty is out of blind loyalty to the Bamster. No one has yet responded to my question about why the Preamble of the Treaty ties offensive missiles and defensive missiles together? I bet that's because it can't be justified from an American standpoint.

Edit: This Treaty will bring heartbreak to America.
Click to expand...
Your blanket partisan statements lend nothing to the discussion. I could just as easily claim you only oppose the treaty because Obama was in favor of it. In fact, I have a lot more evidence seeing as how you called Obama "bamster" and are leveling this accusation against everyone who dares disagree with you.

Defenses against theater-level missiles do not violate the treaty, and defenses against the intercontinental buggers are a futile effort.
 
Last edited:
Deuce said:
Your blanket partisan statements lend nothing to the discussion. I could just as easily claim you only oppose the treaty because Obama was in favor of it. In fact, I have a lot more evidence seeing as how you called Obama "bamster" and are leveling this accusation against everyone who dares disagree with you.

Defenses against theater-level missiles do not violate the treaty, and defenses against the intercontinental buggers are a futile effort.
Click to expand...

Deuce, what about the fact that the Russians and Americans interpret the Preamble of the Treaty differently? Can you answer that question? Bamster:)
 
I love how alberto capitalises on the term "missile defense" yes it defends against missiles... unfortunately what he does not seem to have realized is that it (whenever it were to become viable it is still partially science fiction) would merely permit the united states to strike countries with newly negligible deterrents. This completely throws nuclear balance into whack, would incite nations to develop new nuclear technologies to counter it, and frankly **** us into a scarier world. It's not because the planet hates america because 1/2 of americans are some shining beacon of would be model citizens defenders of 'freedom', its that nuclear escalation and imbalance can be prevented in the future and unfortunately other nations have some rights and say as members of planet earth.
 
SE102 said:
I love how alberto capitalises on the term "missile defense" yes it defends against missiles... unfortunately what he does not seem to have realized is that it (whenever it were to become viable it is still partially science fiction) would merely permit the united states to strike countries with newly negligible deterrents. This completely throws nuclear balance into whack, would incite nations to develop new nuclear technologies to counter it, and frankly **** us into a scarier world. It's not because the planet hates america because 1/2 of americans are some shining beacon of would be model citizens defenders of 'freedom', its that nuclear escalation and imbalance can be prevented in the future and unfortunately other nations have some rights and say as members of planet earth.
Click to expand...

Paragraphs are your friends.
 
Harshaw said:
Right. As if you can explain why you want it other than "Obama negotiated it."
Click to expand...

The thread isn't about me; it's about the START treaty.

Why ratify the START treaty?

Reductions in nuclear weapons; resumption of on-the-ground inspections; continued cooperation to secure nuclear materials. The benefits are essential to national security.

Every living former Secretary of State, Democrat and Republican, supports ratification. The Department of Defense supported ratification.

This debate was never about the treaty but about the politics surrounding the treaty and now, thank God, the Senate has moved beyond politics.
 
Chappy said:
The thread isn't about me; it's about the START treaty.

Why ratify the START treaty?

Reductions in nuclear weapons; resumption of on-the-ground inspections; continued cooperation to secure nuclear materials. The benefits are essential to national security.

Every living former Secretary of State, Democrat and Republican, supports ratification. The Department of Defense supported ratification.

This debate was never about the treaty but about the politics surrounding the treaty and now, thank God, the Senate has moved beyond politics.
Click to expand...

This Treaty is all about giving Obama a victory on something, anything, regardless of its impact on missile defenses.

This isn't over for those Republican senators who vote for the Treaty. For them, this is just beginning.
 
Albert Di Salvo said:
This Treaty is all about giving Obama a victory on something, anything, regardless of its impact on missile defenses.

This isn't over for those Republican senators who vote for the Treaty. For them, this is just beginning.
Click to expand...

So, now you're going to turn it around and say that the reason to support the treaty is to support Obama. Interesting.

Instead of supporting Obama, or supporting the Republican Party, shouldn't the Congress be debating the merits of the treaty, regardless of whether it was written by a Democrat or a Republican?

Partisan politics are a bane.
 
Dittohead not! said:
So, now you're going to turn it around and say that the reason to support the treaty is to support Obama. Interesting.

Instead of supporting Obama, or supporting the Republican Party, shouldn't the Congress be debating the merits of the treaty, regardless of whether it was written by a Democrat or a Republican?

Partisan politics are a bane.
Click to expand...

You've misinterpreted my post.
 
Albert Di Salvo said:
You've misinterpreted my post.
Click to expand...

How else could I possibly interpret:

This Treaty is all about giving Obama a victory on something, anything, regardless of its impact on missile defenses.

This isn't over for those Republican senators who vote for the Treaty. For them, this is just beginning.
Click to expand...

??
 
Dittohead not! said:
How else could I possibly interpret:



??
Click to expand...

Democrats supported the Treaty despite its negative impact on missile defenses. They did this for Obama.

The politics is over for the Treaty. This is a major loss for missile defenses. So how can conservatives make sure that other conservatives don't break ranks in the future? That's where the fight will be. There will be behavior modification.
 
Last edited:
Albert Di Salvo said:
Democrats supported the Treaty despite its negative impact on missile defenses. They did this for Obama.

The politics is over for the Treaty. This is a major loss for missile defenses. So how can conservatives make sure that other conservatives don't break ranks in the future? That's where the fight will be. There will be behavior modification.
Click to expand...

And what allegiance to the Democratic President Obama is owed by the former Secretaries of State for the last five Republican Presidents who also support the treaty? That would be Henry A. Kissinger, George P. Shultz, James A. Baker III, Lawrence S. Eagleburger, Colin L. Powell and Condi Rice.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/01/AR2010120104598.html

http://content.usatoday.com/communi...12/obamas-start-treaty-wins-support-of-rice/1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Secretaries_of_State_of_the_United_States
 
Last edited:
Albert Di Salvo said:
Democrats supported the Treaty despite its negative impact on missile defenses. They did this for Obama.

The politics is over for the Treaty. This is a major loss for missile defenses. So how can conservatives make sure that other conservatives don't break ranks in the future? That's where the fight will be. There will be behavior modification.
Click to expand...

So, conservatives have to march lock step. If some of them think that the treaty is overall a good plan, they'd better vote against it anyway because the other conservatives did, and they can't "break ranks."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom