PDA

View Full Version : Why does he hate America?



bullypulpit
11-23-2010, 07:47 AM
Senator John Kyl (R-AZ) was, for some reason or other given final say in whether or not the START Treaty signed by President Obama and Russian President, Dmitry Medvedev in April of this year. Since then, Senator Kyl, time and again, has refused to bring a treaty vital to national security to a vote.This despite bipartisan support for the treaty and unanimous support from the military.


In a stunning rebuke to members of his own caucus, Senate Foreign Relations Committee ranking Republican Richard Lugar (R-IN) said on Wednesday that the GOP is intentionally trying to put off a vote on the New START treaty with Russia, and avoiding a serious discussion about the treaty within the caucus.

"At the moment, the Republican caucus is tied up in a situation where people don't want to make choices," Lugar told reporters in the hallway of the Capitol building Wednesday. "No one wants to be counted. No one wants to talk about it." - <a href=http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/11/17/lugar_rebukes_own_party_for_avoiding_new_start_deb ate_wants_to_force_vote_now>Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN)</a>


An unusual split has opened between conservative Republicans and the American military leadership over the U.S.-Russia nuclear treaty, with current and former generals urging swift passage but politicians expressing far more skepticism.

Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has called the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) "essential to our future security." Retired generals have been so concerned about getting it ratified that some have traveled around the country promoting it.

Seven of eight former commanders of U.S. nuclear forces have urged the Senate to approve the treaty...

...Retired Lt. Gen. Dirk Jameson, the former deputy commander of U.S. nuclear forces, said Friday that it was 'quite puzzling to me why all of this support [for New START]...is ignored. I don't know what that says about the trust that people have and the confidence they have in our military...

..former head of the Central Command and Pacific Command retired Adm. Willim J. "Fox" Fallon said of New START: "If you've had experience with this stuff, and a sense of where we've been, how far we've come . . . this is an absolute no-brainer."- <a href=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/19/AR2010111906497_pf.html>The Washington Post</a>

Admiral Fallon's statement is based on a false assumption...That being that GOP opposition to the START treaty is based in anything resembling rational thought.

And God knows, the GOP bitched often enough that we should listen to the "generals on the ground" when it served their purposes. But when what military commanders have to say on a matter fails to meet the GOP leadership's sniff test, as in the GOP's stated goal of undermining Obama's presidency, then the advice of military commanders is ignored in favor of political chicanery.

Re-establishing inspection protocols, which lapsed in 2009, would help reduce the risk of loose Russian nukes falling into the hands of Al Qaeda or those in its orbit. But it would seem that national security takes a back seat to the GOP's obsessive desire to destroy Barrack Obama for no more reason than he's a Democrat. Oh, and yeah, a black man.

darin
11-23-2010, 08:02 AM
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-ridicule.html

You're embarrassing yourself.

Kathianne
11-23-2010, 08:02 AM
Maybe he just wants some issues addressed?

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/09/Twelve-Flaws-of-New-START-That-Will-Be-Difficult-to-Fix

bullypulpit
11-23-2010, 09:07 AM
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-ridicule.html

You're embarrassing yourself.

No, John Kyl is the embarrassment. The facts stand on their own. Kyl is stalling ratification for purely political reasons, and has yet to present any substantial arguments against said treaty.

Kathianne
11-23-2010, 09:10 AM
No, John Kyl is the embarrassment. The facts stand on their own. Kyl is stalling ratification for purely political reasons, and has yet to present any substantial arguments against said treaty.

But you wouldn't argue for political reasons, right? I mean you care about the substantial concerns?

bullypulpit
11-23-2010, 09:19 AM
But you wouldn't argue for political reasons, right? I mean you care about the substantial concerns?

If Kyl were to present substantial, objective concerns on the matter, I would be more than willing to listen. But he hasn't. His arguments, and those of his fellow travelers, are based in nothing more than crass political calculation.

And while we're at it, let's not forget the Secretary of Defense...

<center><a href=http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703339304575240164048611360.html>The Case for the New START Treaty </a></center>

Kathianne
11-23-2010, 09:21 AM
If Kyl were to present substantial, objective concerns on the matter, I would be more than willing to listen. But he hasn't. His arguments, and those of his fellow travelers, are based in nothing more than crass political calculation.

And while we're at it, let's not forget the Secretary of Defense...

<center><a href=http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703339304575240164048611360.html>The Case for the New START Treaty </a></center>

You've already nailed Kyl, what about yourself or the administration regarding substantial issues? I mean it's all about 'loving' America, right?

SassyLady
11-23-2010, 11:06 PM
Basic question ... what is wrong with the old START? Why do we need a New START?

Missileman
11-24-2010, 12:01 AM
If Kyl were to present substantial, objective concerns on the matter, I would be more than willing to listen. But he hasn't. His arguments, and those of his fellow travelers, are based in nothing more than crass political calculation.

And while we're at it, let's not forget the Secretary of Defense...

<center><a href=http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703339304575240164048611360.html>The Case for the New START Treaty </a></center>

How about answering the 12 problems with the treaty as posted by Kathianne? Any one of the 12 reasons would be reason enough to hold it up for repair...the 12 combined make it a steaming pile of shit. Maybe we have to fucking ratify it so we can find out what's in it.

Gaffer
11-24-2010, 03:56 PM
Maybe he just wants some issues addressed?

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/09/Twelve-Flaws-of-New-START-That-Will-Be-Difficult-to-Fix

Those are serious issues. They need to throw it out and start over.

SassyLady
11-24-2010, 08:34 PM
If the WH can prove no concessions were made to the Russians limiting our missile defense, the treaty might have a chance.

The WH says START is necessary because we have to reduce our arsenal in order to get other countries to pressure Iran and N. Korea to not build nukes. This just doesn't sound like common sense to me. Why do we have to make ourselves vulnerable?

Gaffer
11-24-2010, 08:53 PM
If the WH can prove no concessions were made to the Russians limiting our missile defense, the treaty might have a chance.

The WH says START is necessary because we have to reduce our arsenal in order to get other countries to pressure Iran and N. Korea to not build nukes. This just doesn't sound like common sense to me. Why do we have to make ourselves vulnerable?

One of the first things your taught in the police academy is that you never put your gun down. You might have to go with a stand off but you don't ever disarm yourself. The WH doesn't understand basic self defense let alone how to deal with powerful foreign threats. The senate need to tie up this treaty for the next two years until they get a majority in there that can get a real treaty written.