world

Obama enlists big guns to help save nuclear treaty

21 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2010 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.

21 Comments
Login to comment

Only complete and total morons would insist on keeping enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world hundreds of times over and say that ALL should be modernized. Unbelievable. I would say the EXACT same thing if the Republicans were working towards 'de-nuclearization' (or at least reducing stockpiles) and the Democrats were siding against it; but clearly this shows how lunatic many of the Republicans are.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

oh yes, republicans are bad.

Obama is grasping for something positive to his legacy, but a useless treaty like this will not even begin to erase the incompetence he has shown so far.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I would say the EXACT same thing if the Republicans were working towards 'de-nuclearization' (or at least reducing stockpiles) and the Democrats were siding against it

There is no such thing as "de-nuclearization."

but clearly this shows how lunatic many of the Republicans are.

Harry Truman - Repub or Democrat?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@smithinjapan, So the US should not update their nuclear arsenal, but allow the Russians to do so? The reason why this treaty is good for Russia is that it allows them to draw down their arsenal (which is greater than the US), and then still have room to update their arsenal. Nor does this treaty mention the PRC and their weapons.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

America does not have the spare money right now to maintain all that arsenal. That spare money would be better used to reduce spending and pay down debt.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

manfromamerica: "Obama is grasping for something positive to his legacy, but a useless treaty like this will not even begin to erase the incompetence he has shown so far."

Bang on! So let's stand up for so many nuclear weapons because it's Obama who wants to reduce the stock piles!!! :)

TimRussert: "There is no such thing as "de-nuclearization.""

Guess you missed the quotation marks around them. Errr... wait, I get it. You have nothing to say to counter my statement so can only deflect by trying to criticize. Keep trying, bro.

"Harry Truman - Repub or Democrat?"

Again, simply trying to deflect.

Alphaape: "So the US should not update their nuclear arsenal, but allow the Russians to do so? The reason why this treaty is good for Russia is that it allows them to draw down their arsenal (which is greater than the US), and then still have room to update their arsenal"

THE SKY IS FALLING! I'm reminding of McCarthy-like mental slowness and paranoia when I read statements like this. If the US can't afford to update it's arsenal, Russia certainly cannot. The Republicans are paranoid nutbags. How about reducing the stockpile by half so the world can only be destroyed... well... a few hundred times over? Nah! That would simply be logical, save money, help make peace, and enable the remaining stockpile to be maintained.

You guys are comical, seriously. You cannot admit that there is simply no need to have so many, so have to deflect at every step of your 'arguments'. Funniest part yet is the same guys that will mock Obama for not maintaining how ever many thousand warheads you have are the same people who say he's not using enough money to create jobs or what have you. But hey, we all know the nukes grow on trees and can be maintained for free, and updated, without any R&D money, to prevent war against an 'enemy' we cannot verify is doing the same thing (except can prove that they cannot afford it).

Classic. :)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If Obama said he supports people being happy Republicans would fight to make people angry; that's all there is to it. Doesn't matter what it is, they just want to fight anything they don't create themselves, and since they create nothing themselves or even come up with basic plans to do so, that's the only thing they can do. Period.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Best is when Republicans say things like, "chortle we're not against world peace! We're just against the way Obama wants it. We have our own plan... errr... which we will... ummm... talk about.... some day.... errr.... ummm..."

0 ( +0 / -0 )

smithinjapan "THE SKY IS FALLING! I'm reminding of McCarthy-like mental slowness and paranoia when I read statements like this. If the US can't afford to update it's arsenal, Russia certainly cannot. The Republicans are paranoid nutbags."

You are reminding of McCarthy-like mental slowness? You are exhibiting it, if you ask me. This treaty is hardly urgent. The world knows it is not the US or Russia who are most likely to resort to nukes. Dems need something to show for almost two years in office. The whole 'reset' business Hillary embarrassed herself with.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The world knows it is not the US or Russia who are most likely to resort to nukes

Um, HELLO! The world knows it is the USA who already resorted to nukes

0 ( +0 / -0 )

MisterCreosote: "You are exhibiting it, if you ask me."

Hey, I only made a typo -- you are the one pointing out that the paranoid people of the McCarthy era were slow.

"The world knows it is not the US or Russia who are most likely to resort to nukes. Dems need something to show for almost two years in office."

Quick question, easy yes or no: are you for or against a reduction in the world's nuclear stockpile?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

are you for or against a reduction in the world's nuclear stockpile?

And leave ourselves defenseless against the aliens when they come to enslave the human race? I think not. Although one could reduce the number of nuclear weapons down without reducing our ability to destroy the world. If the U.S and Russia were to pool their resources they could build a salted bomb that either country could activate, that way everybody still dies of radiation poisoning and we only have one of them floating around.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

THE SKY IS FALLING! I'm reminding of McCarthy-like mental slowness and paranoia when I read statements like this. If the US can't afford to update it's arsenal, Russia certainly cannot.

@smithinjapan: Then why is it that a country as poor as Norht Korea is able to get a nuclear weapon. Also, Pakistan seems to be suplementing their defense spending based on the amount of money the US gives them in the war on terror, and they have quite a few nukes too (and guess what, they don't have oil either just like North Korea). And Iran is building their nuke program also.

So smithinjapan, since you seem to think that it is a good thing for the US to reduce their nukes, don't you think it would be good if Pakistan, India, North Korea give up theirs also?

My advice to you, read the treaty, get an understaning of how the US nuclear policy works, and find out what the Russians have been doing in regards to beefing up their capabilities, and then come back and make some statements, other than the old leftist chatter that you keep displaying.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The usual screeds from the usual suspects. The facts are that there were 18 congressional hearings, hundreds of questions submitted by congress and answered, and compromises agreed to. And then suddenly at the 11th hour "more time is needed before moving forword". And Kyl can't even articulate the reason why.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The usual screeds from the usual suspects. The facts are that there were 18 congressional hearings, hundreds of questions submitted by congress and answered, and compromises agreed to. And then suddenly at the 11th hour "more time is needed before moving forword". And Kyl can't even articulate the reason why.

Kyl has said why. He wants more of a committment in other areas, before he agrees to this. He is the guy among the Republicans whose focus is on Nuclear weapons. So pretty much all of them take their cues from him. If he says no, it doesn't matter what Lugar says. And please note, he is not saying no. In fact a few months ago, he said he wanted this treaty. However he has reservations he needs addressed before he can support it.

Again, please note, that Kyl isn't saying he won't support it. In fact he does. He just doesn't until his conditions are met. And when asked if they could do it during the lame-duck session, he said no. Not enough time with all the other things to deal with. This is reasonable, as this is not something you want to have a 30 minute debate over before agreeing to it.

For myself, I don't see a need for this treaty. Its not the cold war. Russia is not the big bad enemy anymore. If they want to keep their nukes, and maintain them, who cares? The US should modernize their own arsenal, reducing it doesn't really serve the interests of anyone, other then people who don't like us. It certainly doesn't make the world any safer, unless countries like Iran, India, Pakistan, China, and NK are included.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Republicans have argued that the treaty would limit U.S. missile defense options

How?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

He just doesn't until his conditions are met.

Exactly how republicans compromise. No give. Just stall until their conditions are met. That's why were in so much trouble. They have moved the country too far to the right over the last 20 years.

Taka

0 ( +0 / -0 )

smithinjapan:

Best is when Republicans say things like, "chortle we're not against world peace! We're just against the way Obama wants it. We have our own plan... errr... which we will... ummm... talk about.... some day.... errr.... ummm..."

I have never seen or heard this. So - - outside of your imagination where are Republican pols on record with such bizarre statements?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I have never seen or heard this. So - - outside of your imagination where are Republican pols on record with such bizarre statements?

Tim - it doesn't have to be real for Demos to CLAIM that it is.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Kyl's just trying to get a pinch of fame. This was Kyl's equivilant to Joe Wilson's, "You lie." < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This was Kyl's equivilant to Joe Wilson's, "You lie." < :-)

Good to hear. Wilson was proved right.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites