Why are you such an angry child?
Judging from their tone, I bet both CI and Fido got beat up on the playground quite often.
we can get a hug any time we want it
JTT, is ready with your soap on a rope
The second reading of a bill to ratify the newly signed Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty is bound to run into problems in the Russian parliament after some lawmakers came out against ratifying the treaty following its’ interpretations by US Senators.
Unlike before, when the Duma passed international ratification decisions by a single vote, this time the lower house of the Russian parliament is going to discuss the new START Treaty in three readings.
The problem is that the US Senate qualified its resolution to ratify START with a number of statements and interpretations which the Russian lawmakers see as being at odds with the agreement signed by Presidents Dmitry Medvedev and Barack Obama in April. First and foremost, the Russian MPs are concerned over the US plans to build a missile defense system. Vladimir Yevseev, the Director of the Political and Social Research Center, has this to say.
As expected, the stumbling-block in the implementation of the new START Treaty is missile defense. The United States wants a free hand in building a global missile defense shield, so it passed a resolution saying that the deployment of global missile defense bases cannot serve as a pretext for Russia to pull out of the START-3 Treaty. Russia will have to respond appropriately, particularly since a buildup of US missile defense is certain to threaten Russia’s strategic potential.
But for the US amendments, the Russian State Duma would have ratified the treaty last week, Foreign Minister Segei Lavrov says. START-3 is a well-balanced, compromise-based agreement and a significant step towards disarmament, stipulating nearly a twofold reduction in US and Russian nuclear arsenals. Under the Treaty, in seven years from now either party will possess 700 intercontinental ballistic missile carriers, submarine-launched ballistic missiles and heavy bombers with no more than 1550 warheads deployed on them.
The link between strategic offensive and strategic defensive weapons, though acknowledged at the international level, received an interpretation which doesn’t suit Russia. Konstantin Kosachev, the Chairman of the International Relations Committee in the Russian parliament, comments.
The US Senators de facto denied the legitimacy of the Treaty’s preamble which stipulates a link between strategic offensive and defensive weapons. Also, they chose to amend the text of the Treaty as they please. For example, they inserted a provision about mobile missiles on railroad platforms in the text of the Treaty, whereas such a provision is part of the ratification resolution. And they deny an agreement under which intercontinental missiles with non-nuclear warheads will be regarded as nuclear. Clearly, when a missile is in the air, it’s impossible to say which warhead it carries. Presidents Medvedev and Obama passed these agreements on the basis of simple logic.
As Russia braces for clarifying what the US meant by interpreting the Treaty in such a way, experts and opposition members are confident that more interpretations of this kind are due to come up in the near future.
I thought with the passage of the ratification of the START passing the Senate, finally, saner heads prevailed. I should have realized, not so fast.
My son is very suspicious of the powers that be and the so called New World Order, I'm a bit long in the tooth to be worrying about such things and am always telling my son to knuckle down, do well in college and he can then maybe do something about it or as I really wish, just get on with his life.
Then he goes and shows me this film. Now I can dismiss a lot of it but some of it is worrying, especially the food & water manipulation. Also how the banks have blatantly ruined the economy and yet it's the poor who have to pay, sure look at Ireland, it's now owned by the banks & I.M.F. The control of the media by a small handful of people is also blatantly obvious. How else could the likes of Bush & Co have so easily lied their way into the Iraq war.
Should we be worried and if so what can we even do about it.
You wouldn't know what to make of it, mind manipulation from all sides.
I love this website. I provides a lot of information that debunks many popular falsehoods.
The problem with believing any of this false, fear based, propaganda is that it provides an excuse to participate in much worse activity.
Remember, Tim McVeigh believed this crap too.