-
Coal Matters — Even in Manhattan
June 25, 2012 | 14 comments
-
An Unprecedented Two-Track Move
March 14, 2012 | 37 comments
-
He Kept His Eyes on the Prize
January 9, 2012 | 83 comments
-
A 2012 Conservative Case for America’s Future
January 4, 2012 | 23 comments
-
Trust, Don’t Verify
November 17, 2011 | 27 comments
The Obama Watch
Stop START
The ludicrous treaty agreed to by Presidents Obama and Medvedev needs two-thirds Senate approval. No way it should receive it.
President Obama believes he has developed a closer relationship with Russian President Dmitri Medvedev than was enjoyed by his predecessor, George W. Bush. I am doubtful about that, but even if it is so, of what consequence is it? Although the Russian constitution makes the president of the republic the number one figure at the apex of Russia’s governing elite, the reality is that the Russian constitution is what Vladimir Putin says it is. Putin is only No. 2 on paper. He is the premier. But the reality is that Putin dominates Russia today. Just as he dominated Russia when he served – briefly — under the drunken President Boris Yeltsin as his Premier.
So it should give us some concern when President Obama goes out of his way to tout a new strategic arms reduction treaty (START) signed with the ever compliant Medvedev. In fact, the pact as initialed recently in Prague is called the Obama-Medvedev treaty.
U.S. Senators should stop START. As a treaty, it requires a vote of two-thirds of the U.S. Senate. Republicans and defense-minded Democrats — are there any left? — must hold up ratification until many, many questions are answered.
John Bolton calls the START agreement “a treaty for Utopia” in carefully detailed analysis in National Review. Our former ambassador to the UN lays out many specific and pressing concerns and raises questions that deserve to be answered before any senator gives this document his okay.
I would like to address the overall atmospherics of the treaty. Ronald Reagan made sure we did not sign any arms agreements with the Soviets until he had re-built our hollowed-out military — a military demoralized and de-mobilized under the studied neglect of the Carter administration. Jimmy Carter publicly said we had to “get over our inordinate fear of Communism.” The Kremlin bosses took him at his word and ran rampant through Southeast Asia, Southern Africa and Central America.
“Let us never negotiate out of fear,” President Kennedy had said, “but let us never fear to negotiate.” Reagan never feared to negotiate — provided America’s military was second to none.
This treaty will disarm the U.S. without making similar demands on Russia. Russia will retain its current substantial advantage over this country in the numbers of tactical nuclear weapons. If both sides reduce their strategic nuclear stockpiles, then tactical nukes become all the more important.
The U.S. has global commitments. Russia has none (although it’s perilously playing games with Cuba, Venezuela, and even Iran).
Do we want Japan, Germany, or even Australia to feel compelled to go nuclear? This could be the unintended result if the U.S. disarms too quickly. START disarms the U.S. too quickly.
Why should Obama choose this moment to ink a new arms reduction agreement with the Russians? He seems to have forgotten the classic formulation: There is not mistrust in the world because there are arms; there are arms in the world because there is mistrust.
Liberals have always believed that it is the weapons themselves which constitute the greatest danger to world peace. If that were true, then we should have shuddered at the approach of the HMS Trafalgar, a nuclear submarine capable of launching nuclear-tipped Tomahawk missiles against the U.S. We didn’t tremble. That’s because Trafalgar was a British submarine, belonging to our tried and true allies.
Put very simply, the Russians have done nothing recently to merit our trust. Signing an arms reduction agreement with them now makes no sense. They may not want war, but they want the fruits of war. We should remember what Churchill said in 1946.
I do not believe that Soviet Russia desires war. What they desire is the fruits of war and the indefinite expansion of their power…. Our difficulties and dangers will not be removed by closing our eyes to them. They will not be removed by mere waiting to see what happens; nor will they be removed by a policy of appeasement…. From what I have seen of our Russian friends and Allies during the war, I am convinced that there is nothing for which they have less respect than for weakness, especially military weakness.
Unless and until the U.S. is securely in the lead — with a due regard to our alliances and obligations — we should not be ratifying any arms reduction agreements with the Russians. Now is not the time to START. It’s the time to STOP.
About the Author
Ken Blackwell, the former mayor of Cincinnati, Ohio is Vice Chairman of the Republican National Committee’s Platform Committee. He also serves on the boards of the Club For Growth and the National Taxpayers Union.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (58) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Ken Blackwell
More Articles From The Obama Watch
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/06/04/stop-start
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Ken (Old Texican)| 6.4.10 @ 6:45AM
Ken,
Thank you for that. It really did need stating that clearly.
AMENBRO| 6.6.10 @ 9:21PM
the 70s. OIL EMBARGO, IRANIAN HOSTAGE CRISIS,,,Serving under JIMMAH CARTER was the most humiliating weight to bear. Sitting in the Indian Ocean with enough FIRPOWER and pissed of Sailors & Marines to decimate any damn idiot stupid enough to get in our way; just waiting for JIMMAH & ROSELYN to come out of the Rose Garden while IRANIAN ANIMALS paraded innocentEmbassy employees before the camera. DAMN RIGHt I WAS FIGHTIN MAD.
Why is it OBAMA &Company; cannot hear the uproarious LAUGHTER the world's depots are directing at his BACK while the defenseless among us are rapidly allying themselves with whom we were supposed to be protecting them from??
HOW BOUT IT TODDIE, PURPLE HAID OR ALAN BUUUUICK BROOKS????
Jimmah did then , does still now know. What's left after you dig out the peanuts opens his HATE AMERICA snout provers he HEARD IT.
BUT-WHEAT OBAMIE BAM hasn't even left office. Inspite of himself, he can't help it. HUSSEIN is doing exactly what post presidential (emphasis loswer case) JIMMAH does now. LEADERSHIPLESSLY casting hate at his detractors every time he breaths a breath telepromtted or off the cuff kissing our enemies behinds. I am scared shitless. Unlike the 70s praying our President would pull the damn trigger. Our President will probable come after me before our real time enemies.
Want to THANK ALL YOUSE intelligent sounding people for looking so GD dumb. Your priceless sound bites &photo; ops will spark RIBALD cheer & vote garnering for any damn body but incumbents come NOV 2010
Timothy L. Pennell| 6.4.10 @ 8:11AM
I'm sure that our Boy DOES have a better relationship with his Russian counterparts. Why wouldn't he? He's a CHUMP. Everybody likes a CHUMP. Chumps are SUCKERS. And suckers are USEFUL IDIOTS. And the Enemies of Freedom have always loved USEFUL IDIOTS.
Don L| 6.4.10 @ 8:18AM
"President Obama believes he has developed a closer relationship with Russian President..."
This falls into the catagory of a prostitute having a better relationship with her pimp?
Subserviance by any other name is still subserviance. Take a big bow Obama.
Christopher Holland| 6.7.10 @ 10:01PM
More like the relationship a pedestrian on a busy street has with the pickpocket who stole his wallet.
JimH| 6.4.10 @ 8:18AM
Of course claiming a close relationship with Medvedev is like someone in some other country claiming to influence America by having a close relationship with Biden. Putin is still running the show.
Jd| 6.4.10 @ 10:25AM
Wow. So Conservatives would rather have no arms treaty, than one that was signed by Obama? After decades of bi-partisan agreement on arms control, it appears Conservatives wish to politicize this issue as well. It's sad. Not to mention the falicy with the argument. We can't sign a treaty, unless that treaty tips the strategic balance in America's favor? The Russian's would have never even signed such a treaty, which defeats the whole purpose of START. Good thing Ken Blackwell wasn't the negotiator, or we'd be on the verge of another Cold War arms race!
John II| 6.4.10 @ 11:24AM
Is that all you can say in response to a reasoned analysis?
Wow. Your response is sad.
Your response is stupid too, but I'm trying to get into the spirit of smugness emanating from the liberal hive. Let's see: I am saddened by the brain-dead predictable comments issuing from the keyboards of smug liberal ideologues. In fact, I am deeply saddened. In fact again, my sadness findeth no floor to its depth.
How am I doing for a novice in the art of moral smugness?
Will| 6.4.10 @ 7:09PM
You haven't actually addressed any of the points JD made, so perhaps until you do that you could stop attacking others for "sad" responses.
Rick| 11.21.10 @ 10:40AM
You don't get it either. John is giving JD what liberals give Conservatives all the time. You guys never argue the points of arguments, you attack the person.
DSF| 6.5.10 @ 2:55AM
Your comment does a great job defending Blackwell's thesis "We can't sign a treaty, unless that treaty tips the strategic balance in America's favor? The Russian's would have never even signed such a treaty, " Question: If the Russians are smart enough to not sign a treaty that tips the balance away from them, why can't Obama be smart enough to do the same thing??
Jack Coyote| 12.8.10 @ 10:20AM
So a bad treaty, one that puts the US at a strategic and tacticial disadvantage, is better than no treaty? Sounds like appeasement. We all know where that leads.
Pm | 6.4.10 @ 11:16AM
As an Ohioian, I gotta say Ken, stick to domestic politics.
The treaty is modest, the U.S. and Russians still have 1,550 deployed warheads on our triad. Our allies are still under the umbrella. The treaty was just meant to be an extension of the treaty that expired last year-meaning no tactical nuclear weapons. That is the next treaty. But, if you want to oppose it, I guess you are against Kissinger, Schlesinger, and Lugar who have expressed support.
John II| 6.4.10 @ 11:32AM
In other words, the issue doesn't need to be argued because prominent American chinwaggers support the treaty?
That saddens me too.
Pm| 6.4.10 @ 11:53AM
Pretty much. Schlesinger stated the treaty wasn't perfect, no treaty is, but that the benefits far outweigh the costs and the U.S. is better with it, than not having it. I'd much rather have a Russia where we can verify their nuclear weapons than a Russia where we have no verification measures.
John II| 6.4.10 @ 1:49PM
Okay, fair enough. Argumentum ad verecundiam isn't to my taste, but hey, everything's just a matter of taste, right?
But I'm still saddened. Kissinger, Schlesinger, and Lugar have always struck me as intermittently shifty. Is it okay for me to match an ad hominem to your ad verecundiam? Meanwhile, Bolton makes an excellent argument in NR, and no one's responding to it.
Call it envy, but I've just GOT to find out how to play this smug-game or I really WILL be sad.
Dustoff| 6.4.10 @ 12:33PM
Pm
I'd much rather have a Russia where we can verify their nuclear weapons than a Russia where we have no verification measures.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I'm sorry, have we seen any proof that these measures will stand. Russia is good at saying yes to reductions, then not allowing inspections.
Pm| 6.4.10 @ 1:45PM
Odd, cause from everything I've read, the Russians have been pretty good at allowing inspections, going back to the INF Treaty. START inspections were regular and encountered little if no resistance. The proof lies in the treaty text, which is pretty much a continuation of START, with some tweaks. But, you can go read the treaty text for proof that the Russians will allow inspections at facilities.
John II| 6.4.10 @ 9:32PM
Bullshit. Astonishing bullshit, at that. Go post at Huffington where you belong, moron.
Brooklynmatt| 6.5.10 @ 11:40PM
JohnII, your thoughtless rejections nicely parallel your ignorance paraded behind a few borderline related references. Hmm, let's see what would be the word for how I feel about your pathetic comments...oh, thanks, "saddened"
As someone who worked with Bolton, I can't wait to see his reaction to the Russians announcing today that they agree for the first time with us about Iran's nuclear build-up. about No doubt he and the rest of the Spectator reactionary crowd will find it as some kind of failing by Obama.
Christopher Holland| 6.7.10 @ 10:04PM
Can I have the phone number of your drug dealer please? I haven't seen an hallucination that good since Clear Light acid was available in the 1970s
VIKTOR (RUSSIA)| 6.5.10 @ 1:40AM
Comments Everything that I read - funny! By the way your inspectors only last year left the factory for the production of nuclear missiles. But you do not believe me - your press tells the truth.
I laugh because your government wants to destroy us as a nation at all costs. You are such nonsense that read disgusting. U.S. government in the world you know about this? knew exactly? Now the world there are many states and they are independent - you understand that? You write your comments so - as if the U.S. is a world government, and you allow yourself to decide what and how we should do. But we are independent and are not threatening anyone. We, unlike you do not have thousands of military bases around the world. all of our defensive weapons are on our territory, and your missiles are close to our borders and constantly threaten us. You write allies - I find it funny! allies is when against someone else. Against whom you and your allies? Iran? Iraq? open map, so good and you will see that you only have short time to destroy any country (except mine) on the map. Iran and other countries do not pose any threat to the United States. You're ridiculous.
Tiera rodriguez| 6.4.10 @ 12:51PM
why did russia and the people of there native world attact the best art of all time
Drew| 6.4.10 @ 2:05PM
If ever you need palpable proof of how disconnected, not just from reality but also to the present day, the modern neoconservative brain is, then this article provides it in spades.
Citing a Winston Churchill speech from 1946 to support your arguments is a good example. In case you missed the news, the USSR is no more. The Red Army no longer has 200 divisions camped out along the Elbe. And the United States no longer loads its nuclear weapons onto vulnerable piston-engined bombers.
The United States has international commitments? True - but does the author really think that nuclear weapons are going to solve our problems in Iraq, Pakistan, or Afghanistan? Cuba or Venezuala maybe?
Nuclear Japan, Germany, or Australia? Maybe the author missed the news - but at least two of those countries are constitutionally prohibited from ever developing nuclear weapons. But quite frankly, even if they DID decide to get the bomb, how, exactly, would that threaten the US? (Standard Conservative argument ploy: Raise an absurd, nonexistent threat.)
The fact of the matter is this treaty is, at most, a modest reduction in the actual number of warheads: it mainly changes the method by which existing warheads are counted. The numbers contained in the treaty were judged to be be reasonable and safe by the experts in our military and nuclear research institutions. And Ronald Reagan's Defense Secretary (George Schultz) wrote a New York Times editorial suggesting the next steps to be taken - citing the defusion of tensions with adversaries that result from such agreements.
No - this partisan opposition to what is, by any reasonable measure, a landmark achievement for the Obama Administration's foreign policy team is - undoubtedly - far more dangerous to Amerca, and American's safety and security. Why do Conservatives hate America so much?
cats1cowboy| 6.5.10 @ 10:47AM
"at least two of those countries are constitutionally prohibited from ever developing nuclear weapons" When has constitutional prohibition stopped our President from defying the Constitution? Other countries see how Obama acts and will follow suit.
Jd| 6.4.10 @ 6:21PM
My point still was not countered effectively. Why is Mr Blackwell and Conservatives pushing to de-rail the only way we have to verify Russia's nuclear arsenal. Without it, Russia could develop thousands of new nukes without us knowing about it. Unless Conservatives want another arms race with Russia, I suggest they support START. Then again, Conservatives never seem to have a problem with military buildups or global arms races. It's shameful that the right-wing is looking for anything they can to destroy the Obama Administration, from day one. Not that I'm surprised. After all the Conservative Big Brother, Rush Limbaugh, considers the Administration a "regime" rather than our democratically elected president. Conservatives think Obama is not legitimate, so natural they think anything he does is not legitimate. But on an issue as important as nuclear disarmament, how can they be so partisan?
Nick| 6.4.10 @ 9:14PM
Were you in a coma from 2000 to 2009, Jd?
Bleeding heart liberals did nothing but call President Bush's administration a "regime" for 8 years.
Mimi| 6.6.10 @ 6:04PM
SIR... ..This President has alienated 78-80% of all americans. He is not credible, he has LOST the trust and no matter what he does or says it will never be believed! I assure you , his illegitimacy is self-inflicted. He failed the most when he has refused to be president of all of us, not just the CHOSEN few. I regret that he does not appear tohave the capacity or greatness to change his partisan attitude!!!
John II| 6.4.10 @ 7:18PM
You haven't made any point to counter. The issue is whether the Senate is going to inform itself sufficiently to cast a proper vote. Here are just a few questions that need to be answered specifically and not smothered by Professor Obama's cheap rhetoric.
1. Why is the obvious difference in global responsibilities between the US and Russia not a factor in calculating warhead ceilings?
2. What exactly are the "counting rules" involved in this treaty--and what is their rationale?
3. Why is the Russian lead in tactical nuclear weapons not being addressed--and why does it matter?
4. Why does the new treaty return to sub-ceilings on delivery platforms? And what effect will this aspect of the treaty have on American conventional capabilities?
5. Why did the Obama negotiators surrender previous START requirements for on-site inspections, telemetry exchanges, and production monitoring?
6. Finally, for me (because these are what I take to be the questions that MUST be answered in any honest debate about the issue), why was Ellen Tauscher, Obama's undersecretary of state for arms control, unable to answer a relatively lightweight question about the heavy-bomber issue? Does she know what the hell she's doing?
And do you know what the hell you're talking about? The infantile language of your flak-postings suggests that you really don't care.
Jim O'Brien| 6.4.10 @ 8:32PM
"We have tried since the birth of our nation to promote our love of peace by a display of weakness. This course has failed us utterly." - General George C. Marshall, 1945
John II| 6.4.10 @ 9:41PM
Common sense. But there's not an ounce of honest common sense in the Obama administration--and a shit-load of lefty malice.
I suppose it's a useful and necessary experiment. Can we survive THIS the way we sort of survived the Clinton administration and the way we really did survive the Carter administration? To judge from some of the lamebrain postings on this of all sites--Obama flaks trying to smother their critics in damp smugness--the question of American survival gets more moot with each passing imbecility.
Jim O'Brien| 6.5.10 @ 7:28AM
On a more positive note, I think we are in the middle of a sea change in public opinion which will result in a more conservative Congress in November. Americans are very very angry with the course taken by the Demo-Socialists. They feel very unsafe with Obama in the White House, so he must be castrated by the separation of powers so wisely established by our founders.
JmsA| 6.5.10 @ 10:33PM
Si vis pacem, para bellum. Or the inverse at present, Si vis bellum, para pacem.
Phil Kearny| 6.4.10 @ 10:12PM
This treaty should be rejected mainly because it is a distraction in the US and the West's focus on Russia. While we're busy reliving the 1980s--needlessly--we ignore that rising Russia is pushing its way into Eastern Europe, Central Asia, and anywhere else the US and West ignore. And it won't come overnight in a military takeover that would shock us (though we seem to be ignoring their swallowing of Abkazia and South Osetia), but rather they'll do it through dominating energy and local politics. But this bad treaty will build "ties" that Moscow will use to constrain our response to any of their agressive actions. Moreover, what we in the US get is "proof" that Obama's phony reset is working; Russia gets real progress on the ground. That is, they remove US inspectors from Russian soil and under the new treaty US inspectors only visit - a process that Moscow can completely control. As with any treaty it should be weighed in the veiw of pros and cons - and this treaty has no "pros" for the US. It should be rejected.
Ice| 6.5.10 @ 8:46AM
Obama is monkey with a nuclear bomb
Ice| 6.5.10 @ 9:05AM
Will suffice schizophrenia to suffer =) Russia doesn't want war and the fruits of war too.
Clinton nee Publius| 6.5.10 @ 11:50AM
I remember Jimmy Carter's attempts at appeasement with SALT II - the treaty that was never ratified. The arms treaty was signed by Carter and Brezhnev in the summer of 1979, despite all of the concerns of Republicans in the Senate. On Christmas Day 1979 I awoke to find that Russian troops had invaded Afghanistan. There was an Islamic Revolution in Iran that Carter had allowed to come to power and had done nothing to prevent.
We are still reaping the bitter harvest of those seeds planted by socialists and appeasers who deny their involvement and refuse to be accountable for the consequences of their actions.
What do you think will happen? We tried appeasement with Adolph Hitler and we know how that turned out. We tried appeasement with Stalin and he swallowed up Eastern Europe and enslaved it. We tried appeasement with the Chinese communists and over 30 million Chinese were murdered. We tried appeasement with Ho Chi Minh and Pol Pot and 4 million Cambodians and Vietnamese were murdered. We tried appeasement and it always got us into wars and millions died.
We know what is going to happen now - that's a given. The only issue we have to deal with is whether the coming war will start this summer in the Middle East (and Persia) or next spring.
The Islamic radicals see this as their golden opportunity. They will never - NEVER - have a more sympathetic American president to deal with than they have now. After this coming fall, the election cycle will force Mr. Obama to govern as if he is an American. The Islamists know this. They know how much Obama hates Jews and despises the very existence of Israel that makes a mockery of the modern liberal-progressive movement towards world socialism. They know it could be GENERATIONS before they have another opportunity like this and in that time it is only likely that Israel will become infinitely stronger because Israel is a democracy and has a functional market economy. The Islamists know this.
My money is on hostilities commencing on the Jewish holiday of Tisha B'Av at the end of July. It would be ironic as this holiday commemorates the destruction of the First and Second Temples of Jerusalem.
When the war starts you can bet Mr. Obama will send in the lawyers and blame George Bush as his primary foreign policy strategy.
Serk| 6.5.10 @ 12:36PM
Put even more simple, the Americans always did, now are doing, and have done recently everything to eliminate Russia's trust. It was never yet something different from such behavior.
John II| 6.5.10 @ 1:49PM
Apparently you've misspelled your nom de internet. "Serk" is off by one letter--the first one.
Jd| 6.5.10 @ 1:53PM
Still haven't answered my question! Launching attacks and calling the president a monkey don't answer my question. Yes the treaty may not be perfect, but that means you want to de-rail the whole treaty and live in a world with no verification rules or a path toward disarmament? Just because you have questions, many of which can be addressed in other treaties, that means the only solution is to kill the new START treaty all together and live with no treaty? Good thinking there. I wonder if Dr. Strangelove is Blackwell's advisor?
John II| 6.5.10 @ 2:08PM
Au contraire. It is you who has not answered my questions. Especially these two: (1) Do you know what the hell you're talking about? (2) Do you care?
Jd| 6.5.10 @ 2:44PM
I don't know, let's see the entire thesis of the article is to sign no treaty, continue arms races with Russia, and reject any cooperation with them because of "trust". "We shouldn't trust them", that's not the attitude Reagan had with arms treaties. If I'm not mistaken, he signed the INF treaty which called for complete removal of intermediate nukes from both countries. Of course Reagan didn't trust the Russians, but he knew that having no ccoperation with them was foolish. This fairy tale of him being Rambo of the White House is getting old. He did not defeat communism with one hand tied behind his back, he did talk to the Kremlin, and no Reagan signed no treaty with the USSR that tipped strategic balances in America's favor. The reason I know this is the reason I care. To simply think we can continue nuclear arms races with no worries is foolish. How do we then tell countries like Iran and North Korea, "You can have no nukes, but we'll make all we want." That's hypocrisy. We should lead by the power of our example, not the example of our power.
John II| 6.5.10 @ 4:04PM
If you're talking about the Bolton article referenced by Blackwell--where the latter explicitly derives the extended argument for his short opinion piece--then you can't read.
If you're not, then you don't care to read an extended argument on the issue. Which, indirectly, answers my question. You just don't give a damn because you fancy your pose and your absurd name-dropping as an adequate substitute for argument. And in a very small way, you're illustrating one of Bolton's key points about the kneejerk character of disarmament freaks.
Western European| 6.6.10 @ 2:59AM
The most retarded thing to do is to trust f@kn US, the country of terror number one, permanently attacking small countries just to get more oil, the only country that used atomic bombs to kill civilians. I have been in Russia many times too and find it a great country. The insanity of US can be felt from a bunch of retarded idiots commenting on this forum. No worries, mates, the US dominance time is getting over. Obama will help you with that!
Anonim| 6.5.10 @ 5:44PM
People, let's live in peace and friendship!
John II| 6.5.10 @ 10:29PM
Person, ah shaddup!
Jd| 6.7.10 @ 12:26AM
Its pointless, the right-wingers wont answer the question. Let me ask again,
WHY DO YOU WANT TO KILL START?
Everything the article has listed as a result of the treaty is false, and knowingly false. And countering every one of my questions with attacks and inncorrect assumptions will not keep me from asking. You can say whatever you want, ity changes nothing. After all us "disarmament freaks" have to get our point across somehow. I've never been called a freak about anything before. However, in this case, I'm glad nuclear disarmament is my freakish habit. At least I'm a freak with the right intentions. And until the basic question is answered, with no partisan attacks, false assumptions, or ridicule,and no false answers, I will continue to ask again and again until I hear the truth.
John II| 6.8.10 @ 12:26AM
It's not a matter of "killing START." It's a matter of rejecting a particular version of START and demanding a renegotiation.
You invite ridicule when you won't respond concretely to specific questions. It might be interesting to know what you mean by "partisan." I myself am very partisan to good arguments, and you haven't made any, and you resolutely refuse to address any. You're a posturing ass and a fool, if you'd prefer that I not use the term "freak." Makes no difference to me--I have a very large collection of abusive terms to apply to narcissistic poseurs. As an academic I've been surrounded by such people for more than 40 years, time enough to acquire the requisite vocabulary for application to intellectual vagrants and degenerate frauds such as Obama & Co.
You're probably out of your depth, come to think of it. I've been taking measure of your kind of pose longer than you've been alive. And I no longer think it's funny or cute. Either grow up or shut up.
Igvel| 6.18.10 @ 6:21AM
Intresting? What have the Americans done to merit trust of the Russians?
fdk| 7.1.10 @ 4:27AM
beijing massage