"Senate Republican negotiator moves to block vote on new START pact "
Politics is one thing but now the Republican's are just getting me angry. There is NO good reason for blocking this treaty !![]()
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40...s-the_new_york_times
"“Failure to pass the New Start treaty this year would endanger our national security,” Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., who has led negotiations with Mr. Kyl, said in a statement. It would mean “no verification regime to track Russia’s strategic nuclear arsenal,” Mr. Biden said, and would sour a relationship that has helped open a new supply route to troops in Afghanistan and increase pressure on Iran to halt its nuclear program."
![]()
What to expect from a party that has a sworn goal to prevent Obama from getting a second term?
Even with extra money for modernizing the arsenal, they put their own politics ahead of national and world security. This whole recession that should have been a depression was set up under Bush. Nuclear inspections ran out right after Bush and the GOP won't let it resume. I wonder what the next co-incidental step will be? Something at home or abroad? All for 'Taking Back... errr, Over America".
I am not surprised...Originally posted by stalkervision:
"Senate Republican negotiator moves to block vote on new START pact "
Politics is one thing but now the Republican's are just getting me angry. There is NO good reason for blocking this treaty !![]()
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40...s-the_new_york_times
This is exactly what I was thinking before I read this post and that is one of the main problems I have with the GOP, and the state of politics in general in the U.S. Historically Dems have done the same thing in the past, although today the stakes are much higher, which makes it even more sobering.Originally posted by M_Gunz:
What to expect from a party that has a sworn goal to prevent Obama from getting a second term?
Even with extra money for modernizing the arsenal, they put their own politics ahead of national and world security. This whole recession that should have been a depression was set up under Bush. Nuclear inspections ran out right after Bush and the GOP won't let it resume. I wonder what the next co-incidental step will be? Something at home or abroad? All for 'Taking Back... errr, Over America".
As much as they talk about reducing government (and of course we all have seen the effects of that right..), which is a worthy goal to a certain extent and in some areas, and states rights (which always makes me think of the whole civil rights period..), it amazes me that these folks, in their efforts to make sure that they give the president not one iota of positive press, never talk about what would have happened overall had the stimulus not been done. We would have had a depression and things would have been much worse... Also with the health care bill, they opposed much of the original bill not because it would have been bad for the country, but because it would have been bad for the insurance/medical industries to some degree as it would have held them more accountable and given people an alternative. We have seen what tax cuts to the top do for our country.. they ship the jobs overseas and laugh all the way to the bank.
The party of <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">H@LL NO!!</span> is staying true to it's nature.. that's what i see with this...
No one is curious why the Senator might object?![]()
The "article" briefly and quickly dismisses late in the read only one objection by the Senator, otherwise merely stating that he objects without really saying why...
So of course, there's "NO good reason for blocking this treaty !" because MSNBC fails to really mention any.
That seems to be good enough for some: carry on.![]()
Originally posted by Cajun76:
No one is curious why the Senator might object?![]()
The "article" briefly and quickly dismisses late in the read only one objection by the Senator, otherwise merely stating that he objects without really saying why...
So of course, there's "NO good reason for blocking this treaty !" because MSNBC fails to really mention any.
That seems to be good enough for some: carry on.![]()
" Mr. Kyl said he informed the Senate Democratic leader that there was not enough time to resolve all the issues during the lame-duck session that opened this week. “When majority leader Harry Reid asked me if I thought the treaty could be considered in the lame-duck session, I replied I did not think so given the combination of other work Congress must do and the complex and unresolved issues related to Start and modernization,” Mr. Kyl said in a written statement."
What "OTHER WORK" ? More NO saying..?
sounds like a lot of partasian B/S to me but if it's "good enough for others.."
>> "The Kremlin did not respond to the development, but Russian officials have expressed fear that Republican victories in this month’s midterm elections would damage relations. “We don’t have confidence that the document will secure enough votes,” Konstantin I. Kosachev, chairman of a parliamentary foreign affairs committee, said earlier in the day, according to the Russian news media. “The problem is not that the document is bad. We are confronting the fact that Republicans refuse to ratify the treaty.”
Originally posted by stalkervision:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Cajun76:
No one is curious why the Senator might object?![]()
The "article" briefly and quickly dismisses late in the read only one objection by the Senator, otherwise merely stating that he objects without really saying why...
So of course, there's "NO good reason for blocking this treaty !" because MSNBC fails to really mention any.
That seems to be good enough for some: carry on.![]()
" Mr. Kyl said he informed the Senate Democratic leader that there was not enough time to resolve all the issues during the lame-duck session that opened this week. “When majority leader Harry Reid asked me if I thought the treaty could be considered in the lame-duck session, I replied I did not think so given the combination of other work Congress must do and the complex and unresolved issues related to Start and modernization,” Mr. Kyl said in a written statement."
What "OTHER WORK" ? More NO saying..?
sounds like a lot of partasian B/S to me but if it's "good enough for others.."
>> "The Kremlin did not respond to the development, but Russian officials have expressed fear that Republican victories in this month’s midterm elections would damage relations. “We don’t have confidence that the document will secure enough votes,” Konstantin I. Kosachev, chairman of a parliamentary foreign affairs committee, said earlier in the day, according to the Russian news media. “The problem is not that the document is bad. We are confronting the fact that Republicans refuse to ratify the treaty.” </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Quoting an article that clearly lacks info?
Did it occur to you what "all the issues" or "complex and unresolved issues related to Start and modernization" might actually involve? Were you the least bit curious reading the article? Reading it, I was immediately curious exactly why the Senator would object, certainly more interested than "Republicans ere dumb, lulz!" Perhaps rushing through a treaty that deals with our most powerful deterrent is unwise? Nah, we'll quote the Russian official that the treaty is exactly what America needs...
Clearly it's a BS partisan article written for a partisan audience...
Oh wait, it's MSNBC, that's SOP over there.
Russia is just in process of accepting a new ICBM into operational use - the RS-24, a MIRV-ed ICBM (!), which they developed after a secret research program with intention to counter the US missile shield deployed in Eastern Europe. MIRV-ed ICBMs were banned in START treaties up to now (they were allowed only to have one warhead), so US badly needs this treaty, or it must deploy MIRVed ICBMs themselves. RS-24 simply gives Russia an overhelming first strike advantage and is thus dangerously unbalancing thermonuclear equilibrium. I'd guess Russians will demand some guarantees about the missile shield too, before they will be willing to sign the new treaty.
Originally posted by Cajun76:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Cajun76:
No one is curious why the Senator might object?![]()
The "article" briefly and quickly dismisses late in the read only one objection by the Senator, otherwise merely stating that he objects without really saying why...
So of course, there's "NO good reason for blocking this treaty !" because MSNBC fails to really mention any.
That seems to be good enough for some: carry on.![]()
" Mr. Kyl said he informed the Senate Democratic leader that there was not enough time to resolve all the issues during the lame-duck session that opened this week. “When majority leader Harry Reid asked me if I thought the treaty could be considered in the lame-duck session, I replied I did not think so given the combination of other work Congress must do and the complex and unresolved issues related to Start and modernization,” Mr. Kyl said in a written statement."
What "OTHER WORK" ? More NO saying..?
sounds like a lot of partasian B/S to me but if it's "good enough for others.."
>> "The Kremlin did not respond to the development, but Russian officials have expressed fear that Republican victories in this month’s midterm elections would damage relations. “We don’t have confidence that the document will secure enough votes,” Konstantin I. Kosachev, chairman of a parliamentary foreign affairs committee, said earlier in the day, according to the Russian news media. “The problem is not that the document is bad. We are confronting the fact that Republicans refuse to ratify the treaty.” </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Quoting an article that clearly lacks info?
Did it occur to you what "all the issues" or "complex and unresolved issues related to Start and modernization" might actually involve? Were you the least bit curious reading the article? Reading it, I was immediately curious exactly why the Senator would object, certainly more interested than "Republicans ere dumb, lulz!" Perhaps rushing through a treaty that deals with our most powerful deterrent is unwise? Nah, we'll quote the Russian official that the treaty is exactly what America needs...
Clearly it's a BS partisan article written for a partisan audience...
Oh wait, it's MSNBC, that's SOP over there. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
actually the article has a lot more info then your willing or able to own up too but that hasn't matter before so why should it now ?
apparently you actually believe Obama and his negotiating team left all this important stuff out just for the sake of signing a new treaty?![]()
Just more stalling by the Republcan party of no..
and ANYONE that can actually support SARA PALIN in any way REALLY needs to get his noggin tightened.![]()