We could probably turn those two countries to glass hundreds of times over if we concentrated our entire arsenal on them. Why the hell do we need more? I thought you want the government spending less?
We could probably turn those two countries to glass hundreds of times over if we concentrated our entire arsenal on them. Why the hell do we need more? I thought you want the government spending less?
Paranoid delusionals flit from flower to flower sampling the terror of the day.
- Oct 30, 2000
- 42,589
- 5
- 0
What I may suspect and what he chose to spin may be different.
Before convicting him on a prejudical spin; I would like to see what his arguements are for not presenting both sides of the coin.
If the opposition is "Obama", then he is jsutified. If not; then he is trolling and the thread can be locked as a troll thread.
- Oct 30, 2000
- 42,589
- 5
- 0
The first two are justified
The third would be that we do not have a repeat of the push through that happened with the Healthcare system. No one actauly knew what they were voting for because the powers that be did not want the information exposed and debated.
The fourth is pure political and may be skepture by the Dems because they do not want to look at the first three as legit.
your comments are the same - which side of the fence you are standing on related to the fence seems to be the concern
Last edited by a moderator:
I refer you back to my first post. Of course they are justified. That's what rationalizations do, justify bull shit to the mind that doesn't want to see but doesn't have the courage to admit it. There is nothing at all justified there. It is invented garbage. All that garbage was no issue when those running the treaty negotiations were Republicans. The fact that some Republicans are pissed should tell you something. There is only one thing going on here and it's politics, deny Obama a foreign policy achievement. Sorry. I am on the same side of the fence Republicans used to be on. Sorry again.
PS: You realize the military is pissed off at Republicans over this because they are endangering American Security for partisan politics.
Last edited:
They are? There is near unanimous support for the treaty from all elements of the US military both past and present, particularly for the verification procedures which have been repeatedly referred to as vital for US national security by the JCS. The alternative is no verification whatsoever. Also, there is no credible expert that has outlined any scenario where US nuclear options are limited by only having 1,550 warheads.
The only piece of legislation in the entire two and a half century history of the United States that saw more debate than the health care bill was the US entry into WW1. If you consider the health care bill rushed, then every piece of legislation ever written but one was also rushed.
This treaty and its exact terms were signed seven months ago. The idea that the information hasn't been out there is preposterous.
It's pretty simple, the treaty has widespread public support in the US, widespread support by experts, overwhelming support by the US military, and overwhelming support internationally. Despite all this it is extremely difficult for Obama to secure votes from even 20% of the Republican caucus.
Gee, I wonder why.
rudder
Lifer
- Nov 9, 2000
- 19,441
- 86
- 91
well actually... I have been seeing an orthopedic surgeon about something broken in my arm.
Saying there is opposition to the treaty is a blanket statement. Are some senators concerned that we will ratify the treaty with no way to verify whether the Russians will say they will do what they need to do? Are some senators concerned that the treaty does not really do much to reduce the actual number of warheads? Is it really a good step? Will it allow for closer ties with Russia, especially in regards to countries like Iran?
The whole point of rationalization is to prevent reality from entering. Nothing can be said to those who blind themselves to the truth to protect their egos. A percentage of the population will always be brain dead and it's a large percentage. If rationalization and denial weren't effective they would not exist. A person has to put truth above all other considerations if he or she wants to see and he or she has to be prepared to enter hell, because they truth about ourselves isn't very flattering. It actually really stinks. Who is going to say he places party above nation. Not the swine, that's for sure.
We need to cut conventional military spending and increase spending on nukes and other new weapons.
Yes, we do, and no, we don't. You advocate an evil, immoral, foolish, violent policy.
What we need to do is consider having some higher fraction of 1% of war spending go to peace.
There's a very simple point some or most on the right here would benefit from getting a clue about.
There will always be conflict, because people don't only work as a team for the betterment of mankind, they want other people's things, too.
This is systematized, institutionalized, as nations pursue their 'interests' through some very nasty measures against other nations along with 'better' practices.
This is why you might not slaughter your neighbor and take his things, yet you will have people in virtual slavery making you things cheaply across the world.
We can deal with the conflicts between every group wanting to have more and not caring if other groups have less and suffer to give it to them, by simply following those interests, and using economic coercion, economic exploitation, and various forms of violence as needed to get more and more of them; or, we can work towards more sustainable peace and justice, simply because it's the right thing to do, and find ways that prevent violence just as we have ways you don't kill your neighbor for his stuff.
Continuing to spend literal fortunes on 'new weapons and nukes' leads to one thing: reliance on them, with all the evil they bring, to serve our desires. Our founding fathers who cautioned that a 'standing army' was one of the greatest threats to a democracy as it tempted the leaders to use it for gratuitous, selfish purposes, had no idea how strong the problem is with the modern technological military. It leads to the Albright question: "What good is this shiny military if we can't USE it?"
Societies have blind spots. It might be accepting slavery, or the stoning of women. One of ours is our feeling justified to use military violence casually for selfish purposes.
All of these examples are of people serving evil and not realizing they are.
Save234
Amused
Elite Member
- Apr 14, 2001
- 57,487
- 20,020
- 146
The problem with the treaty is cuts and promises not to build more missile defense systems.
WTF??? How can a purely defensive system be a fucking threat? Answer: It cannot. It is the Obama admin caving to countries who want us to remain vulnerable to missile strikes.
Sorry, but no. Not a time to be cutting our defense while Iran and NK gain nuclear capabilities and missile tech.
WTF??? How can a purely defensive system be a fucking threat? Answer: It cannot. It is the Obama admin caving to countries who want us to remain vulnerable to missile strikes.
Sorry, but no. Not a time to be cutting our defense while Iran and NK gain nuclear capabilities and missile tech.
Actually one of the primary purposes for a missile defense system is to enable first strike capability, it can absolutely be a threat.
Not to mention the fact that what you're saying simply isn't true. The chief of the US Missile Defense Agency, General O'Reilly, is on the record stating that this treaty actually reduces the treaty limitations as to what the US can pursue with missile defense.
What is the cost both ways? The reduction to that amount won't change our useful nuclear attack power.
Unless there is something meaningful in the way of cost, relationship, or something else I don't really see this having much to do with anything.
Would seem to me that if we had a use for a large portion of these nuclear weapons in some sort of war everyone loses.
Unless the governments are covering up a global conspiracy about aliens or some other unknown threat lol
Unless there is something meaningful in the way of cost, relationship, or something else I don't really see this having much to do with anything.
Would seem to me that if we had a use for a large portion of these nuclear weapons in some sort of war everyone loses.
Unless the governments are covering up a global conspiracy about aliens or some other unknown threat lol
This poll question could be re-worded "Do you believe the Republican Party is evil" and I bet the poll results would be exactly the same 
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter