Quote:
Originally Posted by Pop Zeus  Yeah, at this point I'm tired of Snaieke's changing the subject. S.O.S. Again. Still doesn't bother to answer questions, just make up new stuff to throw back. It's trolling dressed as apologist. Boring. His last reply to me implies that his is all just political empty check boxing on Obama's part which would mean that he doesn't think the treaty is all that important. But he's unaware he's making that argument (instead using it as a poor excuse for Kyl's behavior) or he's too afraid to flat-out say it that he doesn't think it's important that it get re-ratified.
Not to mention that he missed my point about START 1 and 2, which was that START 2 wouldn't necessarily cover all of START 1. That was for other nuclear materials in addition to START 1. So the failure to ratify START2 doesn't mean that this older set of verifications shouldn't be reaffirmed. But whatevs, right Snaieke? It's all just posturing on Obama's part, which is exactly why Kyl's all good! Barf. It's amazing what lengths he'll go to actually justify doing nothing about national security for partisan reasons.
|
I answered you in post number 4 of this thread.
Quote:
| Sorta makes sense to me to wait until after Jan. 1st to tackle START. |
I think there is a a disconnect between your understand and my understanding on the subject. You seem to be hung up on the "urgency" of this, that if it isn't ratified, it will expire... to my understanding, it expired Dec 5th 2009 and if you do a simple google search of fact checks you'd find this little nugget.
Quote:
THE CLAIM: The treaty's backers say getting inspectors back on the ground in Russia is so urgent that the U.S. cannot afford to wait until next year. "This is not about politics," President Barack Obama said Thursday. "It's about national security. This is not a matter than can be delayed."
THE FACTS: The urgency is political. Next year the Republican ranks in the Senate will expand by six and it will be much more difficult to ratify the treaty. Even the administration concedes that the security risk is not immediate. "I am not particularly worried, near term," Obama's top adviser on nuclear issues, Gary Samore, said Thursday. "But over time, as the Russians are modernizing their systems and starting to deploy new systems, the lack of inspections will create much more uncertainty."
Intelligence officials have expressed concerns that have sounded less than urgent.
"I think the earlier, the sooner, the better. You know, my thing is: From an intelligence perspective only, are we better off with it or without it? We're better off with it," the director of national intelligence, James Clapper, said recently.
|
source
I mean seriously dude, try getting information outside of Huffington Post. I'm all for ratifying START but I think there are things that need to be addressed first and foremost.. which is exactly what Kyl said. Now, is he posturing? Probably but it doesn't mean he isn't right. There is no agenda on what items are going to be addressed for the lame duck session nor is there are timeline on how these items are going to be addressed. This is just more of the same bullshit of shoving legislature down the American's throat without looking things over. The lame duck session only lasts a week to three weeks and there is a lot to do. As to the previous reply, I'm simply saying there isn't some ticking time bomb waiting to go off if this doesn't have an "up or down" vote tomorrow.
