Is START good for us?

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by Light

Let see now Powell, Kissinger, H. Bush, and more in the know republicans who have no political ambitions said it must be done this year.

The GOP'ers making excuses to attack this Reagan initiated treaty between the 2 countries who today still hold 95% of the world's nuclear weapons prove that they are only interested in being on the opposite side of Obama on whatever issue they can politicize.


Truth of the matter is that, just like you have plainly stated, most knowledgable Republicans insisted on the new START Treaty being passed.


Oh well.



People complain if the lame duck Congress is a lame duck and does nothing of importance.

People complain if Congress actually earns their pay and perfomrs their duties, fighting the lame duck idea that their last days should be spent twiddling their thumbs.

Whatever....

[sandie]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

The GOP'ers making excuses to attack this Reagan initiated treaty between the 2 countries who today still hold 95% of the world's nuclear weapons prove that they are only interested in being on the opposite side of Obama on whatever issue they can politicize.


Truth of the matter is that, just like you have plainly stated, most knowledgable Republicans insisted on the new START Treaty being passed.


Oh well.



People complain if the lame duck Congress is a lame duck and does nothing of importance.

People complain if Congress actually earns their pay and perfomrs their duties, fighting the lame duck idea that their last days should be spent twiddling their thumbs.

Whatever....

This lame duck congress got in what it could while they had the majority. We're not all so easily fooled. just saying....

[Seascapes]

Originally Posted by sandie

I have a feeling you rubber stamp whatever liberals put forth. Not that conservatives don't the same sometimes, but would you clairify why you feel this program is best for the country and world?

Sandie, it seems that you are a rubber stamp, always bouncing on my remarks, but that is OK, it is exciting to me to explain my views. Read the information below about the START Treaty, if you are interested, which explains all about it.

START..(for..Strategic..Arms..Reduction..Treaty) was a..bilateral treaty..between the..United States of America..and the..Union of Soviet Socialist Republics..(USSR) on the Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms. The treaty was signed on 31 July 1991 and entered into force on 5 December 1994 .[1]The treaty barred its signatories from deploying more than 6,000..nuclear warheadsatop a total of 1,600..ICBMs,..submarine-launched..ballistic missiles, and bombers. START negotiated the largest and most complex arms control treaty in history, and its final implementation in late 2001 resulted in the removal of about 80 percent of all strategic nuclear weapons then in existence. Proposed by..United States President..Ronald Reagan, it was renamed..START I..after negotiations began on the second START treaty, which became..START II.....The START I treaty expired 5 December 2009. On 8 April 2010, the new..START treaty..was signed in Prague by U.S. President Obama and Russian President Medvedev and ratified by the US Congress. It will enter into force after its ratification through the Russian Duma........As of May 4, 2009, the United States and Russia began the process of renegotiating START, as well as counting both nuclear warheads and their delivery vehicles when making a new agreement. While setting aside problematic issues between the two countries, both sides agreed to make further cuts in the number of warheads they have deployed to around 1,000 to 1,500 each. The United States has said they are open to a Russian proposal to use radar in Azerbaijan rather than Eastern Europe for the proposed missile system. The Bush Administration was using the Eastern Europe defense system as a deterrent for Iran, despite the Kremlin's fear that it could be used against Russia. The flexibility by both sides to make compromises now will lead to a new phase of arms reduction in the future

Sandie that is why I think it is good for America and the whole world.

[sandie]

Originally Posted by Seascapes

Sandie, it seems that you are a rubber stamp, always bouncing on my remarks, but that is OK, it is exciting to me to explain my views. Read the information below about the START Treaty, if you are interested, which explains all about it.

START..(for..Strategic..Arms..Reduction..Treaty) was a..bilateral treaty..between the..United States of America..and the..Union of Soviet Socialist Republics..(USSR) on the Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms. The treaty was signed on 31 July 1991 and entered into force on 5 December 1994 .[1]The treaty barred its signatories from deploying more than 6,000..nuclear warheadsatop a total of 1,600..ICBMs,..submarine-launched..ballistic missiles, and bombers. START negotiated the largest and most complex arms control treaty in history, and its final implementation in late 2001 resulted in the removal of about 80 percent of all strategic nuclear weapons then in existence. Proposed by..United States President..Ronald Reagan, it was renamed..START I..after negotiations began on the second START treaty, which became..START II.....The START I treaty expired 5 December 2009. On 8 April 2010, the new..START treaty..was signed in Prague by U.S. President Obama and Russian President Medvedev and ratified by the US Congress. It will enter into force after its ratification through the Russian Duma........As of May 4, 2009, the United States and Russia began the process of renegotiating START, as well as counting both nuclear warheads and their delivery vehicles when making a new agreement. While setting aside problematic issues between the two countries, both sides agreed to make further cuts in the number of warheads they have deployed to around 1,000 to 1,500 each. The United States has said they are open to a Russian proposal to use radar in Azerbaijan rather than Eastern Europe for the proposed missile system. The Bush Administration was using the Eastern Europe defense system as a deterrent for Iran, despite the Kremlin's fear that it could be used against Russia. The flexibility by both sides to make compromises now will lead to a new phase of arms reduction in the future

Sandie that is why I think it is good for America and the whole world.

Thanks for the explanation.

Curious if you thought what the Vice Admiral (see Sam's post) had to say held anything meaningful, in your opinion?

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by sandie

This lame duck congress got in what it could while they had the majority. We're not all so easily fooled. just saying....

NOTHING was passed without the help of Republicans.

START Treaty is not something to be politicized.

Apparently you are very easily fooled into thinking that no matter what-- the Democrats are bad, Obama is bad and whatever they decide to accomplish must be stopped.


I guess you think you have one up on the former Secretary of States that are alive that supported the START Treaty. Yeah, they were fooled, but you weren't!

Don't you see how you are not making any sense?

Neither are the GOP'ers who are attempting to politicize such an important and stabilizing treaty.


Democrat bad.
Republican good!

(where's the Tarzan smiley face?)

[sandie]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

NOTHING was passed without the help of Republicans.

START Treaty is not something to be politicized.

Apparently you are very easily fooled into thinking that no matter what-- the Democrats are bad, Obama is bad and whatever they decide to accomplish must be stopped.


I guess you think you have one up on the former Secretary of States that are alive that supported the START Treaty. Yeah, they were fooled, but you weren't!

Don't you see how you are not making any sense?

Neither are the GOP'ers who are attempting to politicize such an important and stabilizing treaty.


Democrat bad.
Republican good!

(where's the Tarzan smiley face?)

Nope. democrat not bad, republican not good.

Conservative principles, when adhered to, are far better than liberal/progressive ideaology any day of the week.
You don't have to agree, so you don't need to pull out any smilies.

Have you read the other side of this important issue?

And I stand by what I said....the dems would have never got this thru in the 112th congress and that's just a fact.

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by sandie

Nope. democrat not bad, republican not good.

Conservative principles, when adhered to, are far better than liberal/progressive ideaology any day of the week.
You don't have to agree, so you don't need to pull out any smilies.

Have you read the other side of this important issue?

And I stand by what I said....the dems would have never got this thru in the 112th congress and that's just a fact.

I stand by what I said: it would have been IMPOSSIBLE without commonsense bipartisanship.

I am glad for the recent election of so many hopefully conservative politicians. However, I hope they don't take their election as a nod to obstructionism.


Say we left START not ratified. Do you think it would be a good thing for the nuclear arms race to be on again between America and Russia, on top of everything else already destabilizing our world?


Then you have to wonder about Russia and their surrounding neighbors, and the security or lack of security they have for their existing warheads.

But you would like to encourage an environment where more nuclear warheads are developed?


Or would you like the common sense START Treaty to stay in tact, signed by Reagan to help keep the world's nuclear superpowers at peace?

[sandie]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

I stand by what I said: it would have been IMPOSSIBLE without commonsense bipartisanship.

I am glad for the recent election of so many hopefully conservative politicians. However, I hope they don't take their election as a nod to obstructionism.


Say we left START not ratified. Do you think it would be a good thing for the nuclear arms race to be on again between America and Russia, on top of everything else already destabilizing our world?


Then you have to wonder about Russia and their surrounding neighbors, and the security or lack of security they have for their existing warheads.

But you would like to encourage an environment where more nuclear warheads are developed?


Or would you like the common sense START Treaty to stay in tact, signed by Reagan to help keep the world's nuclear superpowers at peace?

I would like to see America be able to defend herself without having to answser to the Russians. Tghis isn't the same START treaty signed by Reagan. He would never have allowed the Russians to have the final say so.

But the required phase-out of old missiles is not the only thing working in Russia's favour. New counting rules will also allow it to attribute just one warhead per bomber even if it carries more -- a point insisted on by Moscow during the treaty negotiations.

National Defence magazine editor Igor Korotchenko told the RIA Novosti news agency that Russia was now likely to keep just 390 missiles and bombers as it looks to save money ahead of a new round of strategic reductions in 2020.

And Defence Minister Anatoly Serdyukov saw nothing but the treaty's advantages as he defended it parliament Friday.

"We will not have to make any cuts to our strategic offensive weapons," Serdyukov told sceptical lawmakers from the Communist opposition. "But the Americans -- they will indeed have to make some cuts."

side note: can't open two windows on this goofy computer (surely it's the computer, and not me..lol) so will return with the source.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1

[sandie]

New Start: Russia warns US Senate over nuclear treaty Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said the treaty could not be renegotiated Continue

Russia has warned US lawmakers that any change to the new nuclear arms disarmament treaty between the two countries could destroy the pact.

Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said the New Start treaty "cannot be reopened, becoming the subject of new negotiations" according to remarks reported by Interfax news agency.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12042584


Since when does Russia get to dictate whether we can renegotiate?