world

Obama gets Republican votes for arms control treaty with Russia

40 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 This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

40 Comments
Login to comment

Opposition to the treaty turned into a political farce. Lindsey Graham even suggested he wouldn't vote for this nuclear treaty because he was angry about the repeal of gays openly serving in the military.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

A good week for Obama.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

....And better weeks are yet to come. Watch the pace.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Lindsey Graham even suggested he wouldn't vote for this nuclear treaty because he was angry about the repeal of gays openly serving in the military."

Well, that's what the GOP is all about, isn't it? They are worse than spoiled children who don't get what they want. I've seen four-year-olds with better logic and coping mechanisms than most Republicans.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

smith - "ohh, the republicans are soooo bad! just like children!"

isn't the namecalling a bit childish?

The treaty wouldn't be needed if Obama didn't promise Russia to give up the missile defense. Great job BO!!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I learned two things here today as I am watching Grahm on TV... one is that Lindsy Grahms is a he and not a she.... I always thought Lindsey was a girls name and two is "kingdom come" I always thought is was kingdom calm....

Anyway, on this clip, he says the same thing I asked yesterday that the great educated one refused to answer... that is why must the missile defense be taken down? "take down your defenses" doesn't make any sense to me, so calling oh great educated one, please answer.

I see much of this working in Russia's favor, not the US's. also, why do we need a treaty anyway.... I thought with O's election, peace would come to earth.. I was sold on it

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I see much of this working in Russia's favor, not the US's. also, why do we need a treaty anyway.... I thought with O's election, peace would come to earth.. I was sold on it

skip- you see, the Left believes that peace will only come after global capitalism and the current world society has been eliminated through revolution or mutual destruction, then absolute social justice can be established by benevolent authoritarianism, after which poverty, racial inequality, religion and war will no longer exist.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Damn, just when it looked like the GOP's ongoing strategy to destroy America was going from a jog to a sprint.....

0 ( +0 / -0 )

suhsisake3 - great post as usual!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Manfromameric and skipthesong, the treaty both limits total missile and delivery system number and provides for an inspection regime to ensure confidence on both sides that the terms are being agreed to. This is very necessary. And Billgates, I have a feeling that Obama let the latest elections slip away on purpose: better to be an underdog and let the Republicans eat their own children. From a liberal point of view, things are not nearly as bad as they seem.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

laguna - so was the missile defense program Obama agreed to scrap for nothing.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

manfromamerica - "I'm from America."

No kidding....really? :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sushisake3 - Yep! :-D

0 ( +0 / -0 )

better to be an underdog and let the Republicans eat their own children." that should be illegal.

to ensure confidence on both sides" so, I should not have a lock on my door because my neighbor will get offended?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

that is why must the missile defense be taken down? "take down your defenses" doesn't make any sense to me, so calling oh great educated one, please answer.

Not only this, but the treaty lets the Russians upgrade their offensive systems, while the US will not be able to do as much upgrades as them. Also, the Russians have more missiles and nukes, so a cut for them is fine, but while we cut, the same proportion of imbalance will remain.

This is not a good treaty. First we gave up the chemical weapons since the US policy was that any use of chemical weapons on the US will be dealt with by nuclear weapons. Now if we enact this treaty, we loose that, since we can't use nukes on any nations that are a signature to this treaty. That only leaves NK and Iran.

This treaty gives up the US right to defend itself, and to counter any threat from WMD's.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

There will be more than enough to turn both China and Russia into desserts and the resulting radiation would do a good job to the rest of the world. No there will be plenty of nukes to kill most of the people on our spaceship earth.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This treaty gives up the US right to defend itself, and to counter any threat from WMD's.

Like all international agreements if spit hits the fan we (and any other nation) will pull out all the stops. MAD is still on whether it's down on paper or not.

Anyway having Russia reduce their nuclear stockpile by any ammount is always in the favor of the U.S. Because while Russia no longer has the manpower or economic heft to threaten the U.S it also lacks the ability to oversee all of its nuclear weapons making it easier for them to be stolen by rogue elements around the globe and all those rogue elements tend to have a common enemy and guess who it is. Whether its pirates, gun runners, or your average hard working terrorist everybody wants to see me and my nation burn like continent sized bonfire (sorry Canada and Mexico but if we go down you'll probably get it to).

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Not only this, but the treaty lets the Russians upgrade their offensive systems, while the US will not be able to do as much upgrades as them.

Russia is allowed to opt-out of the agreement if the US proceeds developing any missile defense. Great job Obama!!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

There will be more than enough to turn both China and Russia into desserts" Not if either of them hit first

0 ( +0 / -0 )

what was wrong with the star wars?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Star Wars was considered too expensive at 60 Billions so funding was rejected. Soon after more money was found to fight a war.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

skipthesong, both America and Russia has an great striking power in their subs. There would be enough left on either side to finish the job.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

manfromamerica: "isn't the namecalling a bit childish?"

First of all, you misquoted me. If you are going to quote someone, please do it correctly. Secondly, it's not childish at all if it's a fact; the GOP, with people like Lindsay in particular, are whining infants. Why does he want to vote against this bill? Because, in his own words, the DADT was repealed.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

skipthesong: Quick question for you -- hope it doesn't tax you too much -- how many nukes does a nation require? I mean, the US has enough to destroy the world quite a few times over... how insecure can you get that you can't give a few of those up?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

how insecure can you get that you can't give a few of those up?" Well, I'm the type of guy that goes down with a fight... I don't like the idea that we won't be able to get off at least one. What would that guy at the gate of heaven say to us? You know if I went to hell, the devil would laugh and call us wussies.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Alphaape - "Also, the Russians have more missiles and nukes, so a cut for them is fine, but while we cut, the same proportion of imbalance will remain."

Mate, this is a ridiculous comment.

So, instead of the U.S. being able to destroy the world 1,000 times over, it will only be able to destroy the world 775 times over??

WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE???

0 ( +0 / -0 )

skipthesong: "Well, I'm the type of guy that goes down with a fight... I don't like the idea that we won't be able to get off at least one. What would that guy at the gate of heaven say to us? You know if I went to hell, the devil would laugh and call us wussies."

Are you being serious? So, it bothers you that you might not be able to destroy the world 1000 or so times over, but instead only be able to destroy EVERY LIVING THING on the planet 999 times? We're not talking about eliminating ALL the nukes while Russia keeps its weapons... we're talking about REDUCING (that means, by the way, lowering the number) the stockpile. And hey, best part is that if Russia abides by the agreement they'll reduce (that means to lower the number) their stockpile as well! So you'll still both be able to kill the world a few hundred times over, but just not a THOUSAND times!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

best part is that if Russia abides by the agreement they'll reduce (that means to lower the number) their stockpile as well" If you've spent enough time in Queens, you'll know that is a hard pill to swallow.

This can't be the fist time this has been tried...is it?

Thanks for the education profesora

0 ( +0 / -0 )

able to destroy the world 1,000 times over" I've been hearing this number since I was chiquito.. why hasn't that number come up in this day and age? someone's lacking on the advancement side of things. Who coined it?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

skipthesong: Even if it's only a hundred times the US and Russia can destroy the world, not a thousand, you don't think it's too much? What's your limit on how many times the world can be destroyed before it's ridiculous, skip?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Skip, you're totally off the rails on this one. In reality, all it would take is 1 nuke on not even every major city in either Russia or the U.S. and it would all be over. Look at the impact of 9/11 - and that was just a handful of buildings and a paddock with nothing even resembling a nuke. On my rough estimation, adopting that strategy against Russia would leave the U.S. with at least 1,770 nukes still in the shed.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

what was wrong with the star wars?

Well now we technicaly can't deploy nuclear weapons in space but it doesn't say anything about conventional weapons. Project Thor is still an option in the future, rods from God are cooler than nukes anyway.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Good. Next step to a countdown to zero. They are amoral.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I agree with Yong. This is a good treaty with a country that is serious about reducing the number of nukes in the world. Since so many from different political stripes are willing to endorse it the time for petty political bickering is over.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Another problem with star wars is that it ripped off the name of the film series Star Wars, an epic space opera franchise conceived by George Lucas (thanks, Wikileaks...er, pedia), and as a defense policy it was heavily based on fantasy Star Wars concepts such as lasers blasting away at satellites, undoubtedly with a few light saber and photon torpedo battles thrown in.

But seriously, the real problem was that the newer Star Wars characters like Jar Jar Binks were not as sweet as the older ones like Mon Calimari, Admiral Ackbar, the Jawas, and Bobba Fett. Just check out the 200 yen rack at Mandarake for a comparison, and say hello to Nicholas Cage if he's in there trying to buy the woolly mammoth skeleton. If you can recognize him in his cosplay outfit that is.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I learned two things here today as I am watching Grahm on TV... one is that Lindsy Grahms is a he and not a she.... I always thought Lindsey was a girls name and two is "kingdom come" I always thought is was kingdom calm....

I always get confused with "Dragon Slayer" and "Dragon's Lair."

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Glad to hear it passed.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Good. Next step to a countdown to zero. They are amoral"

Well said. Nukes, like guns, are amoral. They themselves are not good or bad, what matters is the people who use them.

Personally, watching Putin have his critics in the media liquidated and reading about how cavalier his henchmen were when they used Polonium-210 to kill that former KGB spy in London doesn't exactly fill me with confidence. But Obama was once a Community Organizer or something, so he must know what he is doing. Besides, it was a campaign promise, and all that...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Not that the fans Obama has here want to think about it or anything but the unintended consequences of this, of Obama reneging on America's traditional commitment to our European allies, is that Japan will start to look even harder at changing their security arrangements. That will include ramping up preparedness for a nuke confrontation, probably to a degree that will look militaristic to the same ppl who cheer Obama's naivete.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

He didn't need a lot of republican votes, so they shouldn't really call this a big victory for Obama. The Dems still have a very good majority in House and Senate. If the Dems all voted for the bill, he wouldn't have needed ANY republican votes.. so some of his own party voted against it. I wonder what was in the fine print.

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