Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Obama Wins Senate Approval of START Nuclear Arms Pact With Russia
Fox News ^ | December 22, 2010

Posted on 12/22/2010 1:04:20 PM PST by brytlea

President Obama secured another major legislative victory Wednesday with the Senate ratification of a nuclear arms treaty with Russia.

Vice President Biden presided over the Senate's 71-26 vote with Secretary Hillary Clinton in attendance.

(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events; Russia; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: 1partyrule; alreadyposted; goodbyeamerica; nucleararms; obama; repubocrats; rinos; russia; start; starttreaty; warforterror; waronterror
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 141-156 next last
To: anniegetyourgun

Correct you are!!!!!!!!!!!!

A new World that most on here do not want to admit is here and now. This is one reason that the other side continues to win.


81 posted on 12/22/2010 2:51:17 PM PST by sport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: brytlea
when Republicans control the Congress and the White House...the DemocRATS will make sure that the LAME DUCK sessions become illegal...
only when a DemocRAT is in control are these rules allowed...It will change once they loose their control.

I HATE the liberals and all democRATS. and I don't often use that word or phrase...but when I get angry I do!!!!

82 posted on 12/22/2010 2:51:28 PM PST by haircutter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: fone

It will be the first time a nuclear arms treaty has been ratified in a Lame Duck session.
http://www.npr.org/2010/12/21/132225116/Lame-Duck-Congress-Set-To-Ratify-START


83 posted on 12/22/2010 2:51:29 PM PST by brytlea (Jesus loves me, this I know.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: old republic

Yes, Russia has specifically threatened to use the withdrawal clause if the US does missile defense. Russian statement:

“The Treaty between the Russian Federation and the United States of America on the Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms signed in Prague on April 8, 2010, can operate and be viable only if the United States of America refrains from developing its missile defence capabilities quantitatively or qualitatively.

Consequently, the exceptional circumstances referred to in Article 14 of the Treaty include increasing the capabilities of the United States of America’s missile defence system in such a way that threatens the potential of the strategic nuclear forces of the Russian Federation.”


84 posted on 12/22/2010 2:52:22 PM PST by Dave346
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: stockpirate

oops, should have also pinged you to #83.


85 posted on 12/22/2010 2:53:17 PM PST by brytlea (Jesus loves me, this I know.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: brytlea

Ah, thanks for the clarification =)


86 posted on 12/22/2010 2:54:44 PM PST by fone (never give up, never give in)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: haircutter

You are directing your anger in the wrong direction. If you want to blame someone, blame the traitors that put them in office.[To wit] The American hating voters.


87 posted on 12/22/2010 2:55:16 PM PST by sport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: fone

I knew I heard someone talking about it, but like usual I was only halfway listening. Thank goodness for the internet and search engines! It makes me seem almost smart. :)


88 posted on 12/22/2010 2:57:27 PM PST by brytlea (Jesus loves me, this I know.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: stockpirate
If you add McCain and (Nancy) Graham you have the 15 liberial republicans that DeMint said there are in the senate.

WOW! DeMint said that? I've not been around much...no time for anything I want to do these days...so I missed it. Although, anyone paying attention should have known this, what with the Republican Main Street Partnership

and all.

89 posted on 12/22/2010 3:01:56 PM PST by Just A Nobody ( (Better Dead than RED! NEVER AGAIN...Support our Troops! Beware the ENEMEDIA))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: massgopguy

And how would defeating the treaty affect that deployment at all?

Part of me thinks it isn’t so much this treaty as it is Obama. Conservatives just don’t trust him when it comes to natl security. With good reason, I might add. I don’t really trust him either.

If this exact same treaty was signed by W in say 2007 or even by a President McCain back in April, I think most conservatives and Republicans would be on board with no questions asked. Conservatives just don’t trust liberals on natl security. Just as liberals don’t trust conservatives on domestic issues.(Witness the tax deal. There’s no way in hell any dems would have voted for it if proposed by a GOP President, even with the goodies thrown in). For that matter, if Mitt Romney had won in 2008 and proposed the exact same Obamacare bill but called it Romney care I’m confident at least 50% of the GOP in both houses would have enthusiastically supported it. Just because it was proposed by a Republican.

It’s about trust in the President. If a Bill Clinton or even an Obama had proposed say the INF treaty or the CFE treaty conservatives would have been up in arms. But because Reagan proposed them they were fine with them. If Obama tried to raise taxes he’d be savaged by conservatives. Imagine if Obama turned tail and ran after a terrorist attack like Reagan did in Beirut in 1983. Or if he was caught selling arms to the mullahs like Reagan was. Reagan raised taxes 3 times and he’s a conservative hero. If Obama even uttered the word amnesty there’d be calls for impeachment. Reagan not only uttered it he signed an actual amnesty and no one really complained. Conservatives attack Obama over the deficit and natl debt, rightly so. But they never really went after Reagan even though he also had problems in those areas. They always made excuses. “The Dem Congress forced him to”. “The spending was all by the Dem Congress” “He had to raise taxes, there was no other choice” “He didn’t know about O’Connor or Kennedy, they lied to him, he thought they’d be good” “They told him the amnesty was ok because they’d really step up the border security after they passed it and it would only be a one time deal” “He didn’t really know what was going on with Iran, North and Poindexter went behind his back” “He had to leave Beirut”.

But...conservatives trusted Reagan intuitively so they accepted his deviations from orthodoxy. Conservatives don’t trust Obama so they anything he does or proposes is seen as wrong until definitively proven not to be.


90 posted on 12/22/2010 3:02:04 PM PST by jeltz25
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: onyx
Corrupt bastards.

Needed to be repeated.

91 posted on 12/22/2010 3:03:06 PM PST by Just A Nobody ( (Better Dead than RED! NEVER AGAIN...Support our Troops! Beware the ENEMEDIA))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Thermalseeker

Any recourse for treason? Perhaps have them removed before the “expiration” dates?


92 posted on 12/22/2010 3:04:27 PM PST by Just A Nobody ( (Better Dead than RED! NEVER AGAIN...Support our Troops! Beware the ENEMEDIA))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: brytlea

Tomorrow they are going to ram the 9/11 health bill through. And, I believe that the DREAM act is attached to it.


93 posted on 12/22/2010 3:04:56 PM PST by Thunder90 (Fighting for truth and the American way... http://citizensfortruthandtheamericanway.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: brytlea

BTTT


94 posted on 12/22/2010 3:06:53 PM PST by hattend (The meaning of the 2010 election was rebuke, reject, and repeal. - Sarah Palin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: old republic
Yes, there is a withdrawal clause for “extraordinary circumstances” (Article XIV Section 3) This is very important, especially since Russian’s unilateral statement on missile defense:

Statement by the Russian Federation on Missile Defence April 8, 2010

"The Treaty between the Russian Federation and the United States of America on the Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms signed in Prague on April 8, 2010, can operate and be viable only if the United States of America refrains from developing its missile defence capabilities quantitatively or qualitatively.

Consequently, the exceptional circumstances referred to in Article 14 of the Treaty include increasing the capabilities of the United States of America’s missile defence system in such a way that threatens the potential of the strategic nuclear forces of the Russian Federation.”

At the signing ceremony, President Obama stated:

“President Medvedev and I have also agreed to expand our discussions on missile defense. This will include regular exchanges of information about our threat assessments, as well as the completion of a joint assessment of emerging ballistic missiles. And as these assessments are completed, I look forward to launching a serious dialogue about Russian-American cooperation on missile defense.”

Note Article V # 3

"Each Party shall not convert and shall not use ICBM launchers and SLBM launchers for placement of missile defense interceptors therein. Each Party further shall not convert and shall not use launchers of missile defense interceptors for placement of ICBMs and SLBMs therein."

I have read that we don't need ICBM/SLBM launchers anymore for defense interceptors and apparently this issue was briefed to the Senators in a classified briefing and this is why they voted for this damn treaty. I'm still troubled also by Article XI11 - Who knows the truth here except the lying politicians?

Treaty (17 pages)

Protocols (165 pages)


95 posted on 12/22/2010 3:20:09 PM PST by luckybogey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Thunder90

I’m just exhausted. I can’t even enjoy my Christmas without these weasels ruining it.


96 posted on 12/22/2010 3:21:18 PM PST by brytlea (Jesus loves me, this I know.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: fone

Actually I was passing on something said on Fox last night or this morning, I guess they were wrong.


97 posted on 12/22/2010 3:39:10 PM PST by stockpirate (Sen. Mitch McConnel (R) has betrayed the Nov. 2, 2010 voters w/his tax bill!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: jakota

Lugar, Brown, Corker, Snowe are up in 2012. Lame ducks Bennett, Voinovich, and Gregg voted yes.


98 posted on 12/22/2010 4:10:00 PM PST by Steelers6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Infidel Heather
If all of this is so great, why didn't they do it before the election? Could it be that they themselves believe that their agenda is 1) unpopular, and 2) harmful to the country?
99 posted on 12/22/2010 4:16:32 PM PST by fhayek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: brytlea

It’s over. Obama and his minions are ORGASMIC, on the heel of DADT.


100 posted on 12/22/2010 4:17:55 PM PST by Cheerio (Barry Hussein Soetoro-0bama=The Complete Destruction of American Capitalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 141-156 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson