-
“Let’s Get This Done”
November 8, 2011 | 0 comments
-
Re: Joe Frazier
November 8, 2011 | 3 comments
-
Deep Thoughts from Occupy Wall Street Toronto
October 24, 2011 | 12 comments
-
The Revolution Goes Trick or Treating
October 17, 2011 | 2 comments
-
Take That, Internet!
October 17, 2011 | 3 comments
The Spectacle Blog
I’m not necessarily opposed to START, but the passionate insistence of supporters that the treaty is absolutely vital to our national security, that is will be an undeniable glorious win for America, that the only possible reason to oppose it is fanatical Obama hatred is either ill-informed or willfully ignorant. These are the similar to the hysterics we heard in support of the Cooperative Threat Reduction program, which, while fantastic for the Russians, hardly live up to its billing for the United States.
We can, you know, weigh the plusses and minuses, and choose to enter into an agreement without rhetorically smothering the life out of any semblance of realism.
View all comments (13) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Shawn Macomber
http://spectator.org/blog/2010/12/21/lets-start-being-honest
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
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
Ken (Old Texican VI)| 12.21.10 @ 11:52AM
Shawn,
Please forgive Antle. He occasionally gets stuck on stupid.
Personally, I don't trust Obama and crew to hammer out a decent ANYTHING on any subject, much less national defense requirements.
Check out the consequences: www.texassaidno.com
Alan Brooks| 12.21.10 @ 1:35PM
I don't like it that an ABM shield for America means we can attack Russia, but Russia cannot attack America. That's not patriotism, that is jingoism: my country right or wrong.
Patriotism, yes; nationalism, no.
dc| 12.21.10 @ 2:05PM
Hard to say this in any other way, but you haven't the slightest clue what you're talking about (even more so than usual). What's an "ABM", Alan? What offensive capabilities does an ABM have? Do you really believe the Russian thugocracy doesn't have and doesn't continue to build mobile ABM systems, which could eliminate any strike from U.S. offensive missiles? In fact they do, and their primary goal is to ensure that the US cuts out its own Achilles tendons and limits its own development of such ABM systems. This "treaty," which the Russians will treat as toilet paper (as they have with almost--see below--all other treaties in their history), will simply give defeatist and treasonous asses like yourself an excuse to leave the country undefended against offensive ballistic missiles, from Russia, N Korea, Iran, or anywhere else.
Think for a change: paper protects nobody. Serious men with weapons and the willingness to use them to kill or at least deter our enemies do. To their lasting shame a "let's all get along" band of RINOs has enabled the former at the expense of the latter. Disgusting--but I'm sure you'll celebrate with some Russian vodka tonight. Keep the dream of being ruled by the Russians alive, right--the left's sadomasochistic fantasy for generations.
Grzmlyk| 12.21.10 @ 4:52PM
Whaaaaa! Whaaaa! Whaaa!
It's UNFAIR that we evil Americans should have any advantages! Even in warfare! See how good I am? Please, everybody, notice how GOOD I am!!!
What a fucking idiot.
What the hell is wrong with you liberals? How can you mistake the fetish for destroying everything that is good and elevating everything that is bad for virtue?
Seriously, you DO know you and your ilk are what's wrong with the world, don't you? If you don't, how can it escape you that liberalism IS a nihilistic, destructive, homicidal force? The only thing it produces is misery for the masses, lucre for the corrupt, power for the sadistic and satiation of moral vanity for fops like you.
God, I hope you are sentenced one day to live in the world you would create for others.
THAT is the only social justice that would truly be fair.
Shawn Macomber| 12.21.10 @ 12:01PM
Lord, if anything, I hope Antle forgives me! He's one of the absolute best in the business, brilliant, and not someone who should be grouped with the likes of me.
In case this post wasn't clear, I'm not knocking people who support the treaty based on a substantive conclusion, but the freak out bullies who are insisting if you don't support the treaty you are an American-hating fool who wants the nation to come to hellfire.
dc| 12.21.10 @ 12:07PM
Name one treaty (other than the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, which Hitler broke before Stalin got around to it) that the Russians have kept, ever. This treaty does nothing but bind US policymakers, who are always itching for an excuse to kill missile defense and lick the toes of the Soviet KGB masters, whom for some reason they admire. Senators Alexander and Corker--you think you're so much more sophisticated than your redneck constituents in Tennessee, think again. Even your constituents know that paper signed by anyone, much less Russian thugs, doesn't protect anything. Weapons and men willing to use them do. Mocking these men and unilaterally disarming is a great way to support Il Duce Negro's beggar-the-nation agenda. Nice work, Senators. Better lay away funds now for your primary challenges.
Ken (Old Texican)| 12.21.10 @ 12:44PM
dc,
Well spoken, Sir. Lay away a few hundred more .22 cartridges for small game as well.
Shawn,
That is why I sometimes ardently disagree with Antle. He brings a lot of good stuff to the table, but as I said, he occasionally hits a blind spot, as we all have.
The thing I appreciate about him is that sometimes a few days after one of us offers a thought-kernel here, he re-visits it with excellent research and writes a definitive article.
Heh, when he gets a little too "east coast elite", I change my screen name to (Old Texican VI)
Besides that, I am a first cohort fox hunter myself.
Grzmlyk| 12.21.10 @ 12:41PM
Could someone explain to me how anyone who is remotely connected with reality could support this - or any - arms treaty?
Hell, the best thing we did in the last 10 years, treaty-wise, was pull out of the outdated, decrepit, counterproductive ABM treaty - and look how liberals squealed then.
At best this treaty is a feel-good victory of style over substance. At worst, it weakens us in many ways - not the least of which is the relinking of offensive and defensive systems.
That fact that we're even debating this now is patently ridiculous - the only reason it's an issue is because Barack Obama, our Nobel Peace Prize winner, needs some foreign policy street cred.
And many conservatives, in their usual shoot-yourself-in-the-foot posture, are perfectly willing to give him what will be a victory to the mainstream media but will be a loss in the real world. Hey, it's lose-lose! Let's get on board THAT train, everybody!
So the liberals can coo over Obama's newfound international negotiating proess and Putin gets to look like a reasonable, peaceful man. Yipee.
The reality is that Obama gets snookered. Again.
To borrow from William F. Buckley, treaties prove one thing: That nations behave themselves. Until they don't.
Treaties with our enemies - or putative enemies - never work because we stick to them and they cheat. End of story. This treaty will WEAKEN the United States - not just against Russia, but the more unstable elements who are already or dangerously close to attaining nukes.
Why conservatives support taking part in this charade is beyond me.
I know, I know: It's all because we eventually want to live in a nuclear free world. Such a great idea. And reminisicent of a scene from one of those old Western movies: a bunch of train robbers have turned on each other and are now all squared off with weapons drawn.
"Hey, Bob. Love your idea of throwing our guns down. I fully support it.
You first."
Zbigniew Mazurak | 12.22.10 @ 6:01AM
"Why conservatives support taking part in this charade is beyond me."
Those who support the treaty are not conservatives. They have no right to call themselves "conservatives". A real "conservative" is one who supports not only low taxes and limited government, but also a strong national defense. And this treaty would gravely WEAKEN America's defense.
The nuclear arsenal would be reduced by 30%, to 1550 warheads, 2 times fewer than the minimum required to conduct a truly biting retaliatory second strike.
The arsenal of delivery systems would be reduced to just 700 deployed and 100 additional nondeployed weapons (SLBMs, ICBMs, bombers). Only a few dozen B-52s and B-2s would constitute the air leg of the nuclear triad, while the number of ICBMs would be reduced by 30, to 420. And every Ohio class SSBN would see 4 of its 24 missile tubes disabled.
The treaty does not cover Tu-22M strategic bombers, which can fly from Russia to the US if refueled.
The treaty does not cover tactical nukes, in terms of which Russia enjoys a huge advantage over the US. In 2000, the GOP proposed the total dismantlement of tactical nukes, which would mean Russia would have to dismantle ca. 200 more warheads than the US.
This treaty must be rejected. If the Senate doesn't reject the treaty, the American people can vote the pro-treaty Senators out of office, starting with Bob Corker, Lamar Alexander, Lisa Murkowski, Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, and Richard Lugar. Most of these RINOs will be forced to face the voters in 2012, as will be 23 Democrats.
Ken (Old Texican)| 12.21.10 @ 12:49PM
GRZ,
I really appreciate you dropping in to hammer some nails.
Thank you
Grzmlyk| 12.21.10 @ 1:11PM
Thank you, Ken.
Honestly, this reasoning just flabbergasts me. Something must happen to our conservative politicians - and pundits - whenever they breathe Washington DC air.
Hey, everybody! Let's load a bullet into every chamber of this revolver and play Russian Roulette! What could go wrong?
Sheesh!
Ken (Old Texican)| 12.21.10 @ 7:09PM
GRZ,
Just spin the cylinder...and expect different results?
...good one, bud, good one.
kdw| 12.21.10 @ 1:44PM
I am incredulous that any Republican would
support this Start Treaty. It unnecessarily reduces our number of missiles and launchers,
allows the Russians a huge advantage in tactical
nuclear weapons (this is almost treasonous) all
the while weakening the verification requirements
which is doubly important because Russia is run
by man we absolutely cannot trust (Putin).
Isn't Putin the man who is personally helping
Iran and now Venezuela build their nuclear
weapons programs? And we are making Putin
the clear winner in this fiasco (for us).
John McCain and Richard Lugar are absolute
morons. Did Republicans win the last election
or not? McCain, Lugar and Co. apparently
didn't get the message. The Tea-Party apparently
still has a lot of winnowing out to do.