Obama: Limits Nuclear Weapons

[CrackerJax]

So far..... no one has given any indication they actually understand what has just happened.

I will give you a strong hint, but you'll have to do ur own home work from here on.

Hint: The Russians are ECSTATIC !!!! Big corks are popping in Moscow!! Big ones.

 

[FlyLikeAnEagle]

Yea, they're so ecstatic they signed an arms treaty an hour ago. Idiot.

 

[CrackerJax]

Yah...that's why.

The uninformed are easily misled.

 

[vh13]

Why shouldn't Russia be excited? They stand to gain just as much as we do.

 

[CrackerJax]

They stand to gain WAY more than we do. This is a MAJOR COUP on their part and they finally found a nooby President to slide it by.

There are other major concessions in the deal that have nothing to do with Russia either.

Did you see the video of them exchanging their copies of the "treaty"?

Ours is twice the size of theirs.... that is NOT good.

And if patterns stay true to form.... no one at the White House bothered to read what the President signed away.

I will keep you all informed. I'll post up the nasty details tonight....and they are nasty...for us.

The guy is INEPT....totally.

 

[NevaSmokedOut]

limited use, here's an even brighter approach: GET FUCKIN RID OF EM! NOW!

 

[FlyLikeAnEagle]

They stand to gain WAY more than we do. This is a MAJOR COUP on their part and they finally found a nooby President to slide it by.

There are other major concessions in the deal that have nothing to do with Russia either.

Did you see the video of them exchanging their copies of the "treaty"?

Ours is twice the size of theirs.... that is NOT good.

And if patterns stay true to form.... no one at the White House bothered to read what the President signed away.

I will keep you all informed. I'll post up the nasty details tonight....and they are nasty...for us.

The guy is INEPT....totally.

Did ya feel the same way when Reagan did the same thing?

 

[CrackerJax]

Same thing huh.... since you don't know what is in this treaty .... you sound woefully uninformed and willing to just throw anything against the wall. Shuffle off now....

Folks, fans, and friends.... I am still digesting the Treaty and will comment when I have deduced the specifics. I will post factual results soon.... but let me say that already this treaty is not what it is being portrayed as.

When I KNOW ... you will KNOW.

 

[londonfog]

Same thing huh.... since you don't know what is in this treaty .... you sound woefully uninformed and willing to just throw anything against the wall. Shuffle off now....

Folks, fans, and friends.... I am still digesting the Treaty and will comment when I have deduced the specifics. I will post factual results soon.... but let me say that already this treaty is not what it is being portrayed as.

When I KNOW ... you will KNOW.

LOL.You are a joke...thank you for making me laugh...You make my high all the more enjoyable..

 

[FlyLikeAnEagle]

Same thing huh.... since you don't know what is in this treaty .... you sound woefully uninformed and willing to just throw anything against the wall. Shuffle off now....

Folks, fans, and friends.... I am still digesting the Treaty and will comment when I have deduced the specifics. I will post factual results soon.... but let me say that already this treaty is not what it is being portrayed as.

When I KNOW ... you will KNOW.

Have you been prescribed any type of medication that you've been neglecting to take?

 

[IAm5toned]

one thing the uninformed should be aware of:

the US military never willingly gives away a strategic advantage.

never.

and i mean never.
the reduction of the number of warheads is irrelevant, as the number of warheads after the reduction is still more than enough to cause a few doomsday events.
the russians are ecstatic because they cant afford to secure and maintain the facilities the warheads are stored in, or the missiles they fly in, and they can sell there uranium for fuel in reactors, and the missile lift bodies can be cheaply converted and sold for profit for commercial satellite insertion. so a major reduction in cost and a major gain in income in one swoop... thats cause for a toast in any politicians eyes.. more cash to line there pockets with!
the US doesnt give a shit because we have better delivery platforms and weapons systems these days, we can achieve a much more effective response using smart weps to take out infrastructure, while looking all nice in the eyes of the world, and no ginormous political backlash for collatoral damage from a nuclear strike.
its START all over again... we came up with something better, so no need to race down the path of ICBM's anymore. it costs too much.
these days who gives a shit about ideologies.. its all about the bottom line= $$$$$

 

[vh13]

the US doesnt give a shit because we have better delivery platforms and weapons systems these days, we can achieve a much more effective response using smart weps to take out infrastructure, while looking all nice in the eyes of the world, and no ginormous political backlash for collatoral damage from a nuclear strike.

This pretty much sums it up nicely I think. Simultaneously maintaining military superiority while gaining global political equity... it makes me goose-pimply all over.

 

[CrackerJax]

Too bad he is wrong in this case however.....

I'll tell you what... i won't "pollute" your lovely uninformed thread..... when I know the real deal...I'll post my own thread.... until then carry on with the wishful thinking....because that's all it is.

 

[vh13]

Too bad he is wrong in this case however.....

I'll tell you what... i won't "pollute" your lovely uninformed thread..... when I know the real deal...I'll post my own thread.... until then carry on with the wishful thinking....because that's all it is.

Dude, why you gotta be an ass like this? Are you socially dysfunctional or something?

You've said absolutely nothing of substance, only personal attacks, if you genuinely think I'm wrong, feel free to convince me.

 

[Near]

I saw a Daily Show segment which perfectly contradicts the ridiculous criticisms made by the right wing. I see quite a few people have parroted those arguments in this very thread.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-april-8-2010/the-big-bang-treaty

 

[vh13]

We only have enough nukes to destroy the whole world.

A very good point. Personal self-restraint would be ideal. If only every government who possessed nuclear weapons were stable and non-corrupt and didn't lose their nukes all the time, then we could all exercise personal responsibility.

 

[Near]

Wow the daily show is retarded. Its a satire comedy show that obviously has its roots in the left. DOn't bash fox news just because you obviously take Sean Hannity as NEWS. Him and Beck arent news. Its a political analysising and opinon based segment.

As far as the treaty. Its stupid. If we reduce warheads thats on our terms. It should not be a "Even" playing field.
If Russia wants to make 100000000000 warheads, then fuckem who gives a fuck. This shouldnt be a international diplomatic situation. Like your boy from the daily show said.
We only have enough nukes to destroy the whole world.

First of all, Hannity being part of their 'opinion team' is totally irrelevant. What he and Gingrich were saying is a complete lie. That's why Stewart showed and then contradicted it. It doesn't matter whether you're supposed to be a strict news anchor or just a commentator; you shouldn't be lying.

It's funny, you call the Daily Show "retarded" but it has already contradicted two of your ridiculous arguments. As for your assertion that there's a meaningful division between news and opinion on Fox:

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200910290044

Your entire last paragraph made no sense to me. You say that it's stupid but offer no disagreement with it. What is your concern about it?

 

[Near]

No it isnt irrelevant, his show is a opinon based show. His opinon is that of a conservatice view. It's not news. Get that str8

How is that relevant to this? Hannity and Gingrich both told a blatant lie in the clip provided. Stewart then responded to the lie and contradicted it. What part of that do you not understand?

How so?

I posted both of the referenced videos.

You are aware that his prime strategy is to create incentives for countries to give up any nuculear ambitions.
Bureaucracy at its best, you should set him up like chamberlain.

How is that similar to what Neville Chamberlain did at all?

If nations comply to the rules of this international treaty then its ok if they attack us with chemical weapons then we agree to not use Nuculear weapons.

That's the exact same lie that Hannity and Gingrich stated. You're completely wrong, that is not what the treaty entails. Looks like you're the "retard" and not Stewart:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-april-8-2010/the-big-bang-treaty

That's the link I posted earlier that you responded to. If you had actually watched it you would have seen that Stewart completely contradicts your lie.

Im saying if the russians want to make a million bombs then they are FREE To do so. It's just another pointless regulation because we already have so many warheads.

It's obviously much better that Russia has less nukes rather than more. This is how the process of disarmament occurs. You make a concerted effort over time to reduce weaponry until the number becomes very low or zero. You can't just have all of the nukes disappear at once with a single agreement.

Again, you completely fail to give any real criticism of this treaty. You simply dislike it because it's Obama that proposed it. I'm sure you have no problem with Reagan for saying the very same things.

Talk is cheap who is to say that North Korea wont join the treaty and continue doing there thing?

Again you show complete ignorance and misunderstanding of the treaty. North Korea is not involved in the treaty, they are not joining it, their participation in it doesn't exist.

 

[vh13]

Just a relevant update:

U.S.-Russia Nuclear Treaty Runs Into Resistance on Capitol Hill

"We have to make darned sure our nuclear warheads are capable, are modern," Lieberman told "Fox News Sunday," as world leaders arrived in Washington for the start of a major nuclear summit. "I'm going to be real hesitant to vote for this treaty unless we have a commitment from the administration that they're prepared to modernize our nuclear stockpile."

Lieberman said the administration will have a hard time getting the votes to ratify in the Senate unless it commits to modernizing the stockpile and obtains clarification from the Russians about whether they'd consider pulling out of the treaty if the United States pursues its missile defense shield.

"I don't believe there will be 67 votes to ratify the START treaty" unless those conditions are met, Lieberman said.

This is shaping up nicely, I think.

 

[NoDrama]

How many ICBM's does it take to destroy a country of moderate size? 3.