world

Obama toasts 'season of progress' after big wins

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 This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.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

19 Comments
Login to comment

Despite major GOP opposition to this bill that strengthens America (no surprises there), Obama picks up a 3rd major policy win. It was fun watching the GOP splinter on this issue - it seems the GOP actually does contain some patriots.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

While I agree that reducing the number of nuclear weapons is a good idea, reducing the amount of melodrama that goes with this story would be just as beneficial.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yet another big win for the president. Not bad for a former community organizer with a middle name that petrifies many conservatives. :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"McConnell said national security was the main concern, “not some politician’s desire to declare a political victory and hold a press conference before the first of the year."

If the treaty had failed to pass, you can be sure Sen. McConnell would have declared victory and held a press conference.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The US Senate has also just passed the 9/11 first responders health bill which was being held up for political reasons. It provides health care for emergency workers who were sickened by toxins/poisons at the 9/11 World Trade Center site.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Wikileaks revealed how Russia completely played Obama.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Wikileaks revealed how Russia completely played Obama."

Really? Can you support that assertion?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Wikileaks revealed how Russia completely played Obama."" The day Wiki reveals anything negative on Obama, will be the day wiki is no longer a viable source of info. They will be considered liars.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I really think that we need to do away with Lame Duck Sessions. This really does prove that. Playing politics with Americas National Security interests is not in our best interests. Hopefully when we get a new President in 2012, we can revisit this issue, and either withdraw from it completely, or go back to Russia renegotiate the anti-missile defense they so desperately don't want us to develop.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Molenir: "Playing politics with Americas National Security interests is not in our best interests."

I'll ask you the same question that I asked skipthesong the other day, and he could not answer: how many nukes do you need?

Seriously, I think some people are way too insecure when they need enough weapons to kill the world 1000 times over.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

There is nothing in the treaty that prevents any efforts for antimissile defense in America. Read the f~ing treaty; it is available in PDF form on the State Dept. website. I am so sick of conservatives that can't get their facts straight. Another link is through Wikipedia. Look up New Start and under External links at the bottom click on "The New START Treaty and Protocol from Whitehouse.gov"

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I'll ask you the same question that I asked skipthesong the other day, and he could not answer: how many nukes do you need?

Not about nukes. Why do you not understand something that simple. Having them in such a way that they can potentially be used, acts as a deterrent. With Obama having already pulled all the boomers, the US no longer has any seaborne nuke deterrent. With regards to this treaty, there are 2 specific problems. The first and greatest is that of Missile defense, which Russia does not want the US to work on. The way this treaty is written, the US cannot further develop or deploy anti-missile technology. The next problem has to do with the fact that Russia has a huge edge in tactic nukes. And with Obama pulling back all the boomers, this is made even more egregious. Overall, this is a bad treaty that gives the US next to nothing.

There is nothing in the treaty that prevents any efforts for antimissile defense in America. Read the f~ing treaty; it is available in PDF form on the State Dept.

Have you actually read it? Perhaps among other things you missed article 5 section 3? Just guessing here though since you seem to insist that it doesn't do what it in fact does.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Big wins? I don't know about everyone else but I watched the Democrat who preceded Bush and the one who came after him, browbeat the American public with the message, at compromise time, that the "Bush tax cuts" were a great deal, for everybody.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Article 5 Section 3 is about the conversion of ICBM/SLBM's to missile defense interceptors and vice versa. When we still maintained plans to implement a missile defense system in Poland and the Czech the Russians were very concerned about the ability to easily convert defensive weapons into offensive weapons. NOTHING prevents the further deployment of the launchers of missile defense interceptors and the interceptors itself. The exact text follows:

"Each Party shall not convert and shall not use ICBM launchers and SLBM launchers for placement of missile defense interceptors therein. Each Party further shall not convert and shall not use launchers of missile defense interceptors for placement of ICBMs and SLBMs therein. This provision shall not apply to ICBM launchers that were converted prior to the signature of this Treaty for placement of missile defense interceptors therein."

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Big wins??? More like stage managed nonsense. They have to give him some wins to keep alive the illusion of democracy. But actually tax cuts was not a win, it was a loss now being spun as a win. The other stuff is considered acceptable and so goes through to give Obama some credibility. Very predictable.

Oh, sorry I forgot I was on Japan Today. That is conspiracy theory stuff for another website. On Japan Today the conspiracy is between liberals, socialists, and poor people gaming the system! That is why the poor got so much money har har.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

There is nothing in the treaty that prevents any efforts for antimissile defense in America. Read the f~ing treaty; it is available in PDF form on the State Dept. website. I am so sick of conservatives that can't get their facts straight. Another link is through Wikipedia. Look up New Start and under External links at the bottom click on "The New START Treaty and Protocol from Whitehouse.gov"

One major flaw of the treaty is that now the US will renounce the use of nuclear weapons in the response to chemical attacks. In the past, the US policy was that we would retaliate with nukes if chemical weapons were used against us, hence the destruction of the US chemical stockpiles.

Now we are saying we won't use nukes against someone who decides to use chemical weapons against us.

There are a few other items in the treaty that gives Obama a "Chamberlin-like" look in dealing with the Russians.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

There's also this piece of information from the treaty:

"(a) A missile of a type developed and tested solely to intercept and counter objects not located on the surface of the Earth shall not be considered to be a ballistic missile to which the provisions of this Treaty apply."

I'm going to have to go with goodDonkey on this one.

smithinjapan: I'll ask you the same question that I asked skipthesong the other day, and he could not answer: how many nukes do you need? Seriously, I think some people are way too insecure when they need enough weapons to kill the world 1000 times over.

It's not just about total warheads. It's about capabilities to deliver the warheads. You have X amount devoted to bombers, X amount devoted to ICBMs, X amount devoted to submarines, etc. If there is a big enough reduction you'll have to start reducing the number of bombers you have, the number of subs you have, etc. One argument is that if you already accept the fact that you have enough to blow up the world many times over, what's the difference if you have an extra 100 or an extra 1,000? In the end reductions will turn into reduced capabilities overall. I don't think we're at that point but it's a dynamic you should take into consideration before just throwing out total numbers.

Also, it's a treaty that binds the US and Russia, and no one else. That can become a problem if a future threat pops up and the treaty limits the ability for Russia or the US to adjust. No one thinks Russian missiles will ever land in Europe, but Russia wants the security of the threat to keep balance. In the meantime you have countries like Iran and North Korea developing longer range missiles. So an agreement to help keep two parties safe might become worthless when a 3rd party comes along and exploits it.

Overall I'm not against the treaty, but it's not just a simple matter of a number and "How many times can you yadda yadda yadda..."

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Also, it's a treaty that binds the US and Russia, and no one else.

It has been reported that Iran is working on a deal to sell their Shaharz (sp?) III missiles to Venezuela. That has enough range to reach the southern portion of the US.

I think that they should have negotiated better on this one, and the Russians knew that they had the upper hand.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

There's also this piece of information from the treaty: "(a) A missile of a type developed and tested solely to intercept and counter objects not located on the surface of the Earth shall not be considered to be a ballistic missile to which the provisions of this Treaty apply." I'm going to have to go with goodDonkey on this one.

Somebody needs to tell the Russians this, sice ITAR-TASS is reporting that: the main Russian government information agency, reported last week: "The treaty will have a legally binding provision on the link between strategic offensive and defensive weapons and will affirm the increasing importance of this link amid the reduction of strategic offensive weapons."

Several Republican-authored amendments to the treaty that sought to alter the preamble were voted down, based in part on assertions that the preamble had no legal standing. But they got voted down, so I guess we got sold a lemon on this one.

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