The News Says that the Republican Brown is going to START with the Democrats

[hogjack]

We gotta be able to blow up the world a gazillion times more than the other guy!

The Soviet Union spent itself into the ground trying to keep up with the Nuclear Joneses.

Perhaps the USA has been on the same path only it's taking longer to get there.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

You who are focusing on "the savings" are really missing the bigger point as illustrated by the wikileaks...

If Barack Hussein Obama and the Democrats had wanted to "save" money and send a message to the world, then they had no need of Russia as a partner. We were being blackmailed by the Russians who sent us strong and unmistakable diplomatic messages that if we did not remove the missile shields that were put there to make the world a safer place, then they were willing to sit back and let the world become a less safe place by refusing to work with us on ANY issue.

The Republicans who folded on this issue are more interested in their careers and what would be written of them in the Democratic press than they are the actual safety and survival of the Republic.

So Pookie, if we want to talk about fiscal hypocrisy, let us begin with the Democrat majorities who hid behind the START treaty to do what was "right." That's your grand deflection; their cowardice and the hunt for political cover so they could say, wasn't us, it was Obama, we're actually STRONG on defense (like when we demanded that second vote on Iraq)!

 

[mercury14]

Most conservatives think Sarah Palin should be put into the position of nuclear arsenal commander. She can't name a single newspaper she reads (other than "all of 'em"), but she should be elected to do the tough negotiating with Medvedev and Putin.

 

[mercury14]

You who are focusing on "the savings" are really missing the bigger point as illustrated by the wikileaks...

If Barack Hussein Obama and the Democrats had wanted to "save" money and send a message to the world, then they had no need of Russia as a partner. We were being blackmailed by the Russians who sent us strong and unmistakable diplomatic messages that if we did not remove the missile shields that were put there to make the world a safer place, then they were willing to sit back and let the world become a less safe place by refusing to work with us on ANY issue.

The Republicans who folded on this issue are more interested in their careers and what would be written of them in the Democratic press than they are the actual safety and survival of the Republic.

So Pookie, if we want to talk about fiscal hypocrisy, let us begin with the Democrat majorities who hid behind the START treaty to do what was "right." That's your grand deflection; their cowardice and the hunt for political cover so they could say, wasn't us, it was Obama, we're actually STRONG on defense (like when we demanded that second vote on Iraq)!

Oh how far you guys have come from the ideals of Reagan.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Most conservatives think Sarah Palin should be put into the position of nuclear arsenal commander. She can't name a single newspaper she reads (other than "all of 'em"), but she should be elected to do the tough negotiating with Medvedev and Putin.

Obama submitted to blackmail.

Once blackmailed, the blackmailer never lets up...

Sarah might simply have said "Nyet. Trust is useless without verification and honest negotiations in which both parties have something to surrender."

Russia surrendered nothing and has been strengthened in Eastern Europe and hence the Middle East as they stood up to us and showed Iran they were a force to be reckoned with.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Oh how far you guys have come from the ideals of Reagan.

Oh how true you have clung to the glory that was Mondale...

 

[Pookie]

So Pookie, if we want to talk about fiscal hypocrisy, let us begin with the Democrat majorities who hid behind the START treaty to do what was "right." That's your grand deflection; their cowardice and the hunt for political cover so they could say, wasn't us, it was Obama, we're actually STRONG on defense (like when we demanded that second vote on Iraq)!

I'm not saying the Democrats were (or are) after fiscal responsibility. And this new deflection of yours isn't going to work either. I laugh at the drunk pointing his finger at the other drunk. It's comedy gold after the past two years of tea bagging about fiscal responsibility. Turns out it wasn't just tea you guys were drinking.

A kitten dies everytime you do this, AJ. More of the same .... over and over.

 

[Pookie]

You who are focusing on "the savings" are really missing the bigger point as illustrated by the wikileaks...

The savings are a drop in the bucket. It's just the mentality of you guys I'm focusing on. Fiscal irresponsibility is fine and dandy ... when it comes to your sacred cows.

Have a spot of tea for me. I don't hit the hard stuff this early in the day.

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[RobDownSouth]

Still stuck in the Cold War.....

Yeah, let's forget East Germany and the Ukraine shall we. How convenient...

There hasn't been a nation called "East Germany" in over 20 years.

CUE AJ'S MUSIC!

 

[Pookie]

Just a fact Pooks. Our military has war gamed hundreds of such scenarios involving the use of nuclear weapons and have arrived at much different conclusions than you do, because they have the facts and KNOW what they are talking about.

Saying it is a fact doesn't make it so. It's just bluster.

You've been asked to put up by HJ. Will you?

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

I'm sorry Pookie, but again the facts say that this was not a pragmatic, responsible treaty, it was blackmail and a kitten dies every time you try to put a feel-good spin on it and when you try to deflect from the sorry state of affairs in Democrat diplomacy by screaming hypocrisy, you sacrifice a puppy on the alter of altruism...

 

[Pookie]

As Senator Kyl said, Obama was "snookered" by the Russians.

Kyl doesn't want to work through xmas. He thinks it's beneath him to be like everyone else. His motivation is quite clear. Not to mention all the spoken desire by a number of Republicans to deny anything that might be perceived as a victory for Obama. Oh, the motivation is quite clear. It's you tea baggers that have been snookered.

 

[Pookie]

I'm sorry Pookie, but again the facts say that this was not a pragmatic, responsible treaty, it was blackmail and a kitten dies every time you try to put a feel-good spin on it and when you try to deflect from the sorry state of affairs in Democrat diplomacy by screaming hypocrisy, you sacrifice a puppy on the alter of altruism...

You say it. None of the "facts" you've presented say anything of the sort.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

You say it. None of the "facts" you've presented say anything of the sort.

I'm sorry, but it's garnered from wikileaks releases of cables. I know it was supposed to tarnish Bush, but somehow Obama got caught up in it. If you were open-minded, you might consider the possibility that Obama (as an extension of his team) was not exactly up to the task of dealing with a cut-throat regime like Putin's.

He gave them what they wanted, got nothing in return, and yet here are his loyal Myrmidons to sell us on what a grand thing it was, a, as you jst characterized it, a pittance on arms reduction and savings. If unilateral arms reduction and fiscal savings were goals of the Democrat Party, then they had all the tools at their disposal, but that was not the purpose of the treaty, the purpose of the treaty was to pay the blackmail in the hopes of cooperation on something as smarmy as future trade deals.

 

[Pookie]

There hasn't been a nation called "East Germany" in over 20 years.

CUE AJ'S MUSIC!

Don't let the facts say anything AJ and VM don't want to say. We can't have that now.

 

[hogjack]

Our military has war gamed hundreds of such scenarios involving the use of nuclear weapons and have arrived at much different conclusions than you do, because they have the facts and KNOW what they are talking about.

Is this the same military that has spent a trillion dollars in Afghanistan and Iraq and still isn't in control?

Blind faith in a government organization is probably not wise.

 

[Pookie]

I'm sorry, but it's garnered from wikileaks releases of cables. I know it was supposed to tarnish Bush, but somehow Obama got caught up in it. If you were open-minded, you might consider the possibility that Obama (as an extension of his team) was not exactly up to the task of dealing with a cut-throat regime like Putin's.

He gave them what they wanted, got nothing in return, and yet here are his loyal Myrmidons to sell us on what a grand thing it was, a, as you jst characterized it, a pittance on arms reduction and savings. If unilateral arms reduction and fiscal savings were goals of the Democrat Party, then they had all the tools at their disposal, but that was not the purpose of the treaty, the purpose of the treaty was to pay the blackmail in the hopes of cooperation on something as smarmy as future trade deals.

When you keep saying what I bolded in your post, I can't help but stop reading and laugh at your clear motivation to distort things. It makes your whole argument ludicrous to continue considering. You're cobbling your views and opinions together and presenting them as "fact". It might work with the tea baggers, but not me.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Don't let the facts say anything AJ and VM don't want to say. We can't have that now.

"Facts", as defined by our two resident Marines Without Honor, are opinions you really, Really, REALLY want to be true.

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[bronzeage]

You might look up the writings of Lieutenant General Daniel O. Graham, United States Army. He wrote extensively on the subject of nuclear weapons, their employment, their practical limitations of targeting when MIRVed, the relative restrictions of MIRVED targeting, their yields and what can be reasonably expected from their use in various military scenarios, and what they cannot do.

Might I suggest his various articles, and you might begin with this book that might still be available: We Must Defend America and Save the World from Madness, Lieutenant General Daniel O. Graham, Regnery Pub.

Does General Graham think the US could withstand a nuclear attack on primary targets and not suffer major losses of population centers?

 

[mercury14]

Please share what you have regarding these important questions.

Vette? We're waiting.

 

[Luk]

You might look up the writings of Lieutenant General Daniel O. Graham, United States Army. He wrote extensively on the subject of nuclear weapons, their employment, their practical limitations of targeting when MIRVed, the relative restrictions of MIRVED targeting, their yields and what can be reasonably expected from their use in various military scenarios, and what they cannot do.

Might I suggest his various articles, and you might begin with this book that might still be available: We Must Defend America and Save the World from Madness, Lieutenant General Daniel O. Graham, Regnery Pub.

So Graham was Vassange before WickiLeaks was cool?