Obama hasn't had an awful lame duck congress if this thing gets passed

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101221/ap_on_go_co/us_us_russia_nuclear_94?loc=interstitialskip

"I think it's going to pass and more than just pass," Bob Corker, one of the Republicans backing the treaty told reporters.

Voinovich on the floor arguing for the New START Treaty, saying all concerns by him have been met by the miltiary, as well our European allies supporting the treaty.
Way to go Voinovich.

67-28 the Senate decided to move the treaty to a final vote tomorrow.

New Start Tready Senate Un-Consititional Act

http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/2645950/posts

Senators cannot renegotiate a treaty, only reject it ........... Follow the Fucking Rule

Go back to Moscow and cut a deal that promotes American national security. The Constitution disfavors treaties that are not patently in U.S. interests, requiring a two-thirds Senate majority for approval — seven more than the 60-vote threshold generally required to move any contentious legislation through the upper chamber.

How does this treaty not promote our national security?

Belly35;609355 wrote:New Start Tready Senate Un-Consititional Act

http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/2645950/posts

Senators cannot renegotiate a treaty, only reject it ........... Follow the Fucking Rule

Go back to Moscow and cut a deal that promotes American national security. The Constitution disfavors treaties that are not patently in U.S. interests, requiring a two-thirds Senate majority for approval — seven more than the 60-vote threshold generally required to move any contentious legislation through the upper chamber.

Ok. This is BS. Come on.
1. The Senate voted down all amendments that would have changed treaty text., all offered by R's. The D's are following the rules. It was the R's that didn't want to, according to your article.
2. In addition to the treaty, the Senate offers a "Resolution of Ratification" a norm for all treaties. This is where usually amendments are offered. There will be some additions on missile defense and tactical weapon negotiations in the future.
3. Going back to Moscow is not an option. Russia is happy with the treaty as well as the administration in its current form. It still maintains our credible deterrent, and still protects missile defense. Besides, we do not want to open up that can of worms on negotiation with the Russians. They could then disagree with a different part of the treaty, stalling it for months, not allowing the U.S. to inspect their sites.
4. It is going to be ratified tomorrow, barring any sudden changes.
5. Get off the talking points.

I don't know enough about this, or the subject itself, to have a good idea whether the treaty is good for the US or not.

However, when the Russians like or agree to ANYTHING I get suspicious.

I guess time will answer all questions. Let's hope they are the answers we wanted.

Writerbuckeye;609418 wrote:I don't know enough about this, or the subject itself, to have a good idea whether the treaty is good for the US or not.

However, when the Russians like or agree to ANYTHING I get suspicious.

I guess time will answer all questions. Let's hope they are the answers we wanted.

They liked IF, START 1, and the Moscow treaty and did not breach those treaties behind minor technical details that got resolved through the proper treaty channels.
I agree that the Russians cannot be fully trusted, which is why I think the treaty is needed now. We have no way to verify what the Ruskies are doing now. This would allow us to effectively monitor their strategic arsenal.

Would this be the same "effective" monitoring that was done in Iran and N. Korea?

Writerbuckeye;609461 wrote:Would this be the same "effective" monitoring that was done in Iran and N. Korea?

No.
That is/ was the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency).

Our monitoring of the Ruskies is a joint State Department/ Department of Defense inspection system that allows for our inspectors to pretty much declare at random any specific base, any specific missile and any specific warhead to ensure compliance. It has worked pretty well since 1988, the INF Treaty and inspectors.

ptown's quote at the bottom of his post says it all. This gives us some verification.

I have a suggestion about where we can shove at least one of the nukes...

Final debates are being heard now, with ratification in an hour or two.
Senate has agreed to several R amendments on missile defense and modernization related to the "Resolution of Ratification"

Treaty is ratified. 71 for 26 against.
Fantastic. The Ruskies already said they will move to ratify next week.
Entry into force will be by the start of the year.

Today, on December 22, 2010, the United States Senate voted 71-26 to give advice and consent to ratify the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START). This vote sends the arms control agreement to President Obama to sign, and will likely be followed by quick Russian ratification of the pact.

New START received yes votes from the following Senators:
* 58 Democratic Senators
* 59: Scott Brown (R-MA)
* 60: Bob Bennett (R-UT)
* 61: George Voinovich (R-OH)
* 62: Olympia Snowe (R-MA)
* 63: Susan Collins (R-ME)
* 64: Lamar Alexander (R-TN)
* 65: Johnny Isakson (R-GA)
* 66: Bob Corker (R-TN)
* 67: Thad Cochran (R-MI)
* 68: Lisa Murkowski (R-AL)
* 69: Judd Gregg (R-NH)
* 70: Mike Johanns (R-NE)
* 71: Richard Lugar (R-IN)

Look at that list… I would rather pick up dog shit then shake any of their hands….

Career politician ………… worthless dickwad (jackwagon)

[video=youtube;JhlWddAXSRA] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhlWddAXSRA [/video]

Oh come on Belly.
Countless current and former Defense and Missile Defense generals and officials supported this treaty.

Belly35;610325 wrote:Look at that list… I would rather pick up dog shit then shake any of their hands….

Career politician ………… worthless dickwad (jackwagon)

[video=youtube;JhlWddAXSRA] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhlWddAXSRA [/video]

it's sad that all you can type/think/say is just talking points from one side

I'll also say that I learned that some R's see missile defense not as an ideology, but a theology.
Even though the technology for long range missile defense is very, very spotty, the speeches sounded like it was a proven fact.

Bend over and spread 'em, Belly.

Belly, isn't "* 59: Scott Brown (R-MA)" like one of your tea party heroes or something?

Bottomline here is in the long run this Treaty will come full circle and bit America and our Allies in the ass... and when that time come many of you and I will dead and or have forgotten this Treaty converstaion on the OC.

"talking points" that funny coming for the Liberal, Democrat .... the creater of talking points (during the Bush days)

Are those experts and general the same ones that many of you Democrat and Liberal railed on over the Weapons of Mass Destruction or are these different general and expert that Obama installed from the Acorn rank. You take all the experts and generals you want but the bottomline is ..is this the best deal for the Sercurity and Defence of American

One last point ....Career Politians are just that ... they will say (Tea Party) and do whatever gains them favor... however in the end they will be exposed for who they are .... case in point Obama ..

Republician, Liberal, Democrat, Tea Party ..whatever assholes come in all parties attire

dude - why can't you be honest? You don't like it because Obama likes it. It's ok to admit it.

Belly35;611222 wrote:Bottomline here is in the long run this Treaty will come full circle and bit America and our Allies in the ass... and when that time come many of you and I will dead and or have forgotten this Treaty converstaion on the OC.

"talking points" that funny coming for the Liberal, Democrat .... the creater of talking points (during the Bush days)

Are those experts and general the same ones that many of you Democrat and Liberal railed on over the Weapons of Mass Destruction or are these different general and expert that Obama installed from the Acorn rank. You take all the experts and generals you want but the bottomline is ..is this the best deal for the Sercurity and Defence of American

One last point ....Career Politians are just that ... they will say (Tea Party) and do whatever gains them favor... however in the end they will be exposed for who they are .... case in point Obama ..

Republician, Liberal, Democrat, Tea Party ..whatever assholes come in all parties attire

Just like the SALT, INF Treaty, or the START I Treaty, or the Moscow Treaty?

Besides, we will still have 1,550 warheads, and all, repeat all, of our allies support the treaty.

Senator Lugar's final speech before the passage:
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, as the Senate approaches a point of
decision on the New START treaty, I would like to offer a few
concluding thoughts.
My attitudes towards the enterprise of arms control have been
affected by the time I have spent during the last two decades visiting
remote areas of Russia in an effort to bolster Nunn-Lugar dismantlement
operations. When one sees Russian SS-18 ballistic missiles being cut up
at Surovatikha, or when one witnesses the dismantlement of a Typhoon
ballistic missile submarine at the SevMash facility on the approaches
to the Barents Sea, one gets a clear picture of the enormity of the
problem that confronted us during the Cold War.
With all the destructive power that was created during that era
amidst intense suspicion and enmity between the United States and the
former Soviet Union, we were extraordinarily fortunate to have avoided
a mishap that could have destroyed American civilization. During the
last two decades, we have circumscribed the nuclear problem, but we
have not eliminated it. Our cities remain vulnerable to accident,
miscalculation, and proliferation stemming from the Russian nuclear
arsenal. And we still must pay very close attention to the disposition
of Russian nuclear forces.
Visiting dismantlement operations in Russia also underscores that
arms control is a technically challenging endeavor. In these debates we
generally focus on the balance of nuclear forces, deterrence theories,
diplomatic maneuvers, and other aspects of high statecraft. But arms
control is also a ``nuts and bolts'' enterprise involving thousands of
American and Russian technicians, officials, and military personnel.
Verification and dismantlement activities require tremendous
cooperation on mundane engineering challenges, equipment and supply
logistics, and legal frameworks that allow these activities to proceed.
Ironically the exacting nature of arms verification and elimination
may be a blessing. The challenges of this work and the amount of
information that both sides are required to exchange have improved
transparency and forced our countries to build productive partnerships
over time.
The Foreign Relations Committee held a hearing on June 24 in which
Defense Department officials in charge of verification and
dismantlement activities in the former Soviet Union testified. These
officials oversee dismantlement work in Russia that occurs every day.
Their agencies oversaw verification under START I before the treaty
expired on December 5, 2009. They would oversee the verification work
required under the New START treaty.

They described in detail how verification operations are conducted
and gave Senators a picture of how the United States and Russia
cooperate on technically challenging nonproliferation goals. Only five
members of the committee attended that hearing. I wish that every
Senator could have attended, because the presentation underscored how
much the START process links our two defense establishments and how
critical the START framework is to nonproliferation activities.
Mr. President, there is a maxim that has been popularized in American
cinema, variants of which have sometimes been attributed to early
political philosophers such as Sun Tsu or Machiavelli. It is ``Keep
your friends close, but your enemies closer.'' I am not suggesting that
Russia is an enemy. Our relationship with that country is far more
complex. It is a relationship that is both wary and hopeful. We admire
the Russian people and their cultural and scientific achievements,
while lamenting continuing restrictions on their civil and political
liberties. We recognize the potential for U.S.-Russian cooperation
based on deep commonalities in our history and geography, even as we
are frustrated that Cold War sensibilities are difficult to dislodge.
Although we can and must make situational judgments to engage Russia,
such engagement is no guarantee that we will experience a convergence
of perceived interests or the elimination of friction.
But one does not have to abandon one's skepticism of the Russian
Government or dismiss contentious foreign policy disagreements with
Moscow to invest in the practical enterprise of nuclear verification
and transparency. In fact, it is precisely the friction in our broader
relationship that makes this treaty so important.

[[Page S10980]]

It would be an incredible strategic blunder to sever our START
relationship with Russia when that country still possesses thousands of
nuclear weapons. We would be distancing ourselves from a historic rival
in the area where our national security is most affected and where
cooperation already has delivered successes. When it comes to our
nuclear arsenals we want to keep Russia close. There are enough
centripetal forces at work without abandoning a START process that has
prevented surprises and miscalculations for 15 years.
The New START agreement came about because the United States and
Russia, despite differences on many geopolitical issues, do have
coincident interests on specific matters of nuclear security. We share
an interest in limiting competition on expensive weapons systems that
do little to enhance the productivity of our respective societies. We
share an interest in achieving predictability with regard to each
other's nuclear forces so we are not left guessing about equal
potential vulnerabilities. We share an interest in cooperating broadly
on keeping weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of terrorists.
And we share an interest in maintaining lines of communication between
our political and military establishments that are based on the
original START agreement.
Over the last 7 months the Senate has performed due diligence on the
New START treaty. Most importantly, we have gathered and probed
military opinion about what the treaty would mean for our national
defense. We have heard from the top military leadership, as well as the
commanders who oversee our nuclear weapons and our missile defense. We
have heard from former Secretaries of Defense and STRATCOM commanders
who have confirmed the judgment of current military leaders. Their
answers have demonstrated a carefully-reasoned military consensus in
favor of ratifying the treaty. Rejection of such a consensus on a
treaty that affects fundamental questions of nuclear deterrence would
be an extraordinary action for the Senate to take.

Moreover, the treaty review process has produced a much stronger
American political consensus in favor of modernization of our nuclear
forces and implementation of our miile defense plans. This includes
explicit commitments by the President and congressional appropriators.
In the absence of the New START treaty, I believe this consensus would
be more difficult to maintain. We have the chance today not only to
approve the New START treaty, but also to solidify our domestic
determination to achieve these national security goals.
I began the Senate debate on this treaty last week by citing a long
list of the national security threats that currently occupy our nation
and our military. Our troops are heavily engaged in Afghanistan and
Iraq. We are fighting a global terrorist threat. And we are seeking to
resolve the dangerous circumstances surrounding nuclear weapons
programs in Iran and North Korea. We are attempting to address these
and many other national security questions at a time of growing
resource constraints reflected in a $14 trillion debt.
In this context the U.S. Senate has a chance today to constrain
expensive arms competition with Russia. We have chance to guarantee
transparency and confidence-building procedures that contribute to our
fundamental national security. We have a chance to frustrate rogue
nations who would prefer as much distance as possible between the
United States and Russia on nuclear questions. And we have a chance to
strike a blow against nuclear proliferation that deeply threatens
American citizens and our interests in the world.
I am hopeful that the Senate will embrace this opportunity to bolster
U.S. national security by voting to approve the New START treaty.
I thank the Chair.