Obama '08?

Good evening. Any intelligent posts lately?

So Presidents Obama and Medvedev signed this deal reducing nuclear arsenals for the U.S. and Russia back to where they were in about 1960 (which by my calculation is 50 years ago). Obsolete but still lethal relics of the Cold War.
It strikes me as much ado about nothing as both countries still have the ability to reduce each other to rubble where only cockroaches, as is their wont, would survive.
The U.S. Senate must ratify the agreement and it will come up for a vote within the next 6 weeks. 67 votes are needed and the Senate is divided 59-41 in favor of the Dems.
What will the Repubs do?
Will there be bipartisan support, as has happened before on similar issues? Or will there be opposition due to strategic military concerns and/or a political desire to see Mr Obama's effort fail?
So far, I have seen no marching orders put out by the Repub leadership.

Obama is giving up part of our ability to defend ourselves, for nothing.

Obama is giving up part of our ability to defend ourselves, for nothing.

If not: what exactly is the difference, other than the party affiliation of the Presidents in question?

Americans may have to accept higher taxes or changes in cherished entitlements such as Medicare and Social Security if the nation is to avoid staggering budget deficits that threaten to choke off economic growth.

H2O MAN wrote:

Americans may have to accept higher taxes or changes in cherished entitlements such as Medicare and Social Security if the nation is to avoid staggering budget deficits that threaten to choke off economic growth.

I think we've all know for years that there were going to have to be changes to Medicare and SS. The math on this was pretty clear decades ago. Politicians have just been ignoring the problem.

Americans don't elect people based on their long-term strategies, they elect them based on how good they look (the really important stuff).

Social Security if the nation is to avoid staggering budget deficits that threaten to choke off economic growth.

To tell you the honest truth, I confess to the fact that I have not studied the recent agreement in detail at all.

At the root of my distrust is that I do not trust Obama, nor do I trust his judgment one iota, I think he would give up America's security for virtually nothing, I don't think he cares to be perfectly honest.

At the root of this issue or any issue as far as I am concerned, is the trust in Obama. I have none. I do not trust his allegiance to America's security, his honesty, or his judgement.

old europe wrote:

If not: what exactly is the difference, other than the party affiliation of the Presidents in question?

To tell you the honest truth, I confess to the fact that I have not studied the recent agreement in detail at all. At the root of my distrust is that I do not trust Obama, nor do I trust his judgement one iota, I think he would give up America's security for virtually nothing, I don't think he cares to be perfectly honest. I think if I spent the time to study the agreements in more detail, I suspect that I would find you to be in error, although I cannot say that for sure of course. If you are correct in your assessments, my apologies, I would have to admit to my error, but as of now, no, I am not inclined to believe you 100% at all, because I have found your assessments in the past to be very biased and tending to justify any Democratic Party or Obama decision.

At the root of this issue or any issue as far as I am concerned, is the trust in Obama. I have none. I do not trust his allegiance to America's security, his honesty, or his judgement.

There is only one way safely and legitimately to reduce the cost of national security, and that is to reduce the need for it. And this we are trying to do in negotiations with the Soviet Union. We are not just discussing limits on a further increase of nuclear weapons. We seek, instead, to reduce their number. We seek the total elimination one day of nuclear weapons from the face of the Earth.

April 9, 2010

QUOTE OF THE DAY.... I appreciate the role a nuclear arsenal can play in serving as a deterrent against adversaries. But Republican Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota may not appreciate the notion of a proportionate response.

Quote:

"If in fact there is a nation who is compliant with all of the rules ahead of time and they've complied with the United Nations on nuclear proliferation, if they fire against the United States a biological weapon, a chemical weapon or maybe a cyber attack, well then we aren't going to be firing back with nuclear weapons," Bachmann said. "Doesn't that make us all feel safe?"

"No!" shouted the crowd of thousands in Minneapolis.

There are obviously a lot of errors of fact and judgment in that quote, but that "maybe a cyber attack" is the part that stands out.

To be sure, attacks on a country's computer networks can be severely damaging. But even Bachmann, as confused as she is, has to realize that responding to a cyber attack with a nuclear bomb would be the most insane act in the history of humanity. Does she understand what a nuclear bomb does?

So to answer Bachmann's question, no, the United States will not use a nuclear arsenal to respond to a cyber attack. That doesn't mean we'd welcome a cyber attack; it doesn't mean we'd let a cyber attack slide; it doesn't mean our conventional weapons couldn't serve as a sufficient deterrent.

The right really is getting worse.

I don't think he cares to be perfectly honest.

Quote:

At the root of my distrust is that I do not trust Obama, nor do I trust his judgment one iota, I think he would give up America's security for virtually nothing, I don't think he cares to be perfectly honest.

And what do you base this mistrust on? Where do these suspicions come from? Where's the beef? You "don't think he cares" is based on what actions or statements?

Can you point to any actual actions he's done?
Cycloptichorn