Obama was outmaneuvered by Russians on START

[SassyLady]

I knew START wasn't a good idea.


Vice Admiral: Obama was outmaneuvered by Russians on START
U.S. Naval Institute - December 23, 2010



President Barack Obama was outmaneuvered by the Russians and should have abandoned the New START negotiations instead of seeking a political victory, says former nuclear plans monitor Vice Admiral Jerry Miller, USN (Ret).

“The Obama administration is continuing a dated policy in which we cannot even unilaterally reduce our own inventory of weapons and delivery systems without being on parity with the Russians,” Miller told the U.S. Naval Institute in Annapolis, Md. “We could give up plenty of deployed delivery systems and not adversely affect our national security one bit, but New START prohibits such action - so we are now stuck with some outmoded and useless elements in our nuke force.”

After meeting resistance from several Republicans, the U.S. Senate ratified the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) with Russia by a vote of 71-26 on Wednesday.

“The Soviets/Russians were done in by Reagan and our missile defense program because they cannot afford to build such a system,” said Miller. “They instead try to counter our program with rhetoric at the bargaining table. And they won by outmaneuvering Obama. START plays right into their hands.”

Former President Ronald Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) is often credited with bankrupting the U.S.S.R. because the Soviets were unable to keep pace with the technology being developed by the United States.

“We have always been superior in quality of our nuclear force, so we did not have to negotiate with a party we do not trust,” said Miller. “If Obama wanted to save some money and improve national defense, he should have gotten out of the nuke negations and acted unilaterally. START is simply a political victory for Obama.”

Miller, who helped prepare the National Strategic Target List and Single Integrated Operational Plan for waging nuclear war and later participated in arms control meetings with the Soviet government, expressed concern that START could leave the United States vulnerable to other emerging threats.

“The treaty prohibits the conversion of an existing ballistic missile system into a missile defense system,” said Miller. “We might want to do that with a Trident or an ICBM sometime in the future, particularly if the Chinese alleged threat materializes.”

http://www.usni.org/vice-admiral-obama-was-outmaneuvered-russians-start

[Psychoblues]

I knew START wasn't a good idea.



http://www.usni.org/vice-admiral-obama-was-outmaneuvered-russians-start

I believe I could find you a thousand genuine articles by military and diplomatic genius's that dispute that kind of thinking and it probably wouldn't change your mind, SL. If President Obama was outmaneuvered then practically the entire military and intelligence services, all of congress and the State Department were as well. I don't put any faith whatsoever in that man's opinion in this matter of such great national security.

Psychoblues

[jimnyc]

I believe I could find you a thousand genuine articles by military and diplomatic genius's that dispute that kind of thinking and it probably wouldn't change your mind, SL. If President Obama was outmaneuvered then practically the entire military and intelligence services, all of congress and the State Department were as well. I don't put any faith whatsoever in that man's opinion in this matter of such great national security.

Psychoblues

So a Vice Admiral in the US Navy doesn't know what he's talking about?

Why do you hate the Navy and their veterans so much? What have they done to you for you to bill these service men as unreliable and not knowing what they speak of?

[Psychoblues]

So a Vice Admiral in the US Navy doesn't know what he's talking about?

Why do you hate the Navy and their veterans so much? What have they done to you for you to bill these service men as unreliable and not knowing what they speak of?

When did you become such a child, jim?

A vice admiral being insubordinate to the Commander in Chief along with the entire Department of Defense, State Department and congress of these United States of America? I don't have any use for him, jim. And you know the truth about my love for our troops, our country and our national creed.

Psychoblues

[jimnyc]

When did you become such a child, jim?

A vice admiral being insubordinate to the Commander in Chief along with the entire Department of Defense, State Department and congress of these United States of America? I don't have any use for him, jim. And you know the truth about my love for our troops, our country and our national creed.

Psychoblues

David, do you mean like the time you posted about the generals and admirals standing against GWB when he was in office:

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?1319-Admirals-and-Generals-Threaten-to-Quit-if-Shrub-attacks-Iran

Amazing how you have different outlooks based on who the sitting president is. It was ok when GWB was in office, but now you have no use for those who speak out.

I always knew you were a hack, but we now have solid proof.

[NightTrain]

I was thinking the same thing, Jim.

Nailed.

[Psychoblues]

David, do you mean like the time you posted about the generals and admirals standing against GWB when he was in office:

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?1319-Admirals-and-Generals-Threaten-to-Quit-if-Shrub-attacks-Iran

Amazing how you have different outlooks based on who the sitting president is. It was ok when GWB was in office, but now you have no use for those who speak out.

I always knew you were a hack, but we now have solid proof.

Everything in context, jimnyc. There was a credible threat by gwb at that time to invade Iran against almost unanimous advice by the military and intelligence leadership to not do that. It appeared he was going to do it anyway and some Generals and Admirals and high ranking intelligence officers threatened to quit if he continued down that ridiculous road to disaster.

If you notice there as well, jimbo, I linked back to the article where that information was lifted. That is and has always been my habit. It is only prudent.

Hack? Talk to that old retired Admiral and get back with me about hack, OK?

Happy Christmas and Merry New Year!!!!!!!!!!

Psychoblues

[Missileman]

I believe I could find you a thousand genuine articles by military and diplomatic genius's that dispute that kind of thinking and it probably wouldn't change your mind, SL. If President Obama was outmaneuvered then practically the entire military and intelligence services, all of congress and the State Department were as well. I don't put any faith whatsoever in that man's opinion in this matter of such great national security.

Psychoblues

I'm not from Missouri, but indulge me nonetheless and post just 1% of these thousand genuine military articles that think we got a good deal in START.

[Psychoblues]

I'm not from Missouri, but indulge me nonetheless and post just 1% of these thousand genuine military articles that think we got a good deal in START.

Do your reading comprehension skills typify your general intelligence level, Mm? I suggest you re-read the post and this time slow down, concentrate and try to make things happen in your mind that make sense to you. On the other hand it may be your purpose to obfuscate the gist and effectively change the subject. Or, it may be that you're just that freaking dumb as to associate what you said with what I wrote. If I showed you a thousand or even just 10 credible articles from anybody or any credible source would it effect your thinking? I think not but you might go on a research mission of your own and come up with something. Let's see how you can do on that, OK? I think that is entirely more fair in the overall, don't you?

I am satisfied that the President, the State Department, the nonpartisan DoD (nonpartisan, HA), every single intelligence agency in the nation and the overwhelming bipartisan majority in the congress and Senate that voted for this legislation know just a little more than you, or me, or the old retired Admiral/part time political hack that is blowing all this out his ass.

Happy Christmas and Merry New Year!!!!!!!!!

Psychoblues

[NightTrain]

Hack? Talk to that old retired Admiral and get back with me about hack, OK?


So, you're more qualified than the RAdm?

You already admitted to being a REMF (Rear Echelon Mother Fucker) peon years ago, which explains your liberal leanings, but can you explain to us why the RAdm was wrong?

Oh, and Merry Christmas!

[Psychoblues]

So, you're more qualified than the RAdm?

You already admitted to being a REMF (Rear Echelon Mother Fucker) peon years ago, which explains your liberal leanings, but can you explain to us why the RAdm was wrong?

Oh, and Merry Christmas!

Where did I even imply that I was more qualified than the RAdm, NT? Are your reading comprehension skills as deficient as Mm's? And your wild accusation of some admission by me to being a REMF is simple childishness. I thought better of you than that, NT. Are you still riding roots?

Oh, and a very Happy Holidays greeting to you

Psychoblues

[NightTrain]

Where did I even imply that I was more qualified than the RAdm, NT? Are your reading comprehension skills as deficient as Mm's? And your wild accusation of some admission by me to being a REMF is simple childishness. I thought better of you than that, NT. Are you still riding roots?

Oh, and a very Happy Holidays greeting to you

Psychoblues

You stated that he was a hack. How is the RAdm a hack?

[Psychoblues]

You stated that he was a hack. How is the RAdm a hack?

The subject of "hack" is already addressed earlier in this thread. It appears that your reading comprehension skills are indeed as inferior as I also already noted.

Shouldn't you be in bed, NT? Santie Claws is gonna leave you switches and ashes if he comes in and you're still up!!!!!!!!!!!

Psychoblues

[NightTrain]

The subject of "hack" is already addressed earlier in this thread


I'm afraid is it not.


Please outline your points as to why the RAdm is a hack.

Unless, of course, you can't.... which is clearly the case.

[Psychoblues]

I'm afraid is it not.


Please outline your points as to why the RAdm is a hack.

Unless, of course, you can't.... which is clearly the case.

I'm afraid it is. You must be getting sleepy and tired. Do you know what a "hack" is, NT? Ask jimnyc about it and get back with me. None of this excuses your childishness, NT. I really did think better of you than any of this. If it is your purpose to defend the old hack then do it. Until then he remains a hack in not just my opinion but in the opinions of the entire DoD, State Department, US Congress and Senate, CIA and other intelligence gathering entities, etc.

Happy Easter, too, and don't step on the egg laying rabbits. They're rare don't you know?

Psychoblues

[NightTrain]

No.

You stated that the RAdm is a hack, and I want to see your justification for your statement.

You made the statement, back it up!

Or do the logical thing and say:


"NT, I was foolishly speaking out of my ass and parroting the Liberal Democrat soundbite that I read somewhere else and have no idea as to why I called the Rear Admiral a hack."

Your call. So far you've been projecting weakness. Cowboy Up and admit you didn't know what you were talking about and you automatically went to DDM (Democrat Defense Mode).

[Psychoblues]

No.

You stated that the RAdm is a hack, and I want to see your justification for your statement.

You made the statement, back it up!

Or do the logical thing and say:



Your call. So far you've been projecting weakness. Cowboy Up and admit you didn't know what you were talking about and you automatically went to DDM (Democrat Defense Mode).

Already addressed in this thread with another poster. He is a hack. That and a Ret. RAdm. that has little recognition and even less for published work that has been scrutinized and accepted by his peers. That's it.

I do not parrot liberal democrat soundbites as I don't even keep up with them. There is no question, however, that the reichwingers do the parroting and dittohead thing. It's like listening to a broken record!!!!!!!!

I know what I'm talking about with that old hack and your ignorant ass as well. Get yourself some reading glasses or a better education.

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Psychoblues

[NightTrain]

I submitted this question to the original poster but he's not online!!!

No one else on DU had a good answer, so I can't give you one.

I will pretend I didn't see your question, you people are supposed to accept my accusations without question - I have Pelosi's blessing.
.

[NightTrain]

He is a hack.

Alrighty then!

Let's get down to nuts and bolts.

Where is he a hack?

No, you didn't address it. Tell me.

Where is the RAdm a hack? How? Why?


I still don't know why he's a hack; my source is still offline and therefore I can't answer because I can't think for myself - I need to copy and paste and the conversation didn't go this way on DU!

[NightTrain]

tick..............tock............................ ...tick.........................tock

[Psychoblues]

.

Go back through the thread very slowly, NT. Who called who a hack on the front end and what was the response. And who cutely and without following any link said, "I was thinking the same thing" or something of that nature. Why were you thinking the same thing and why didn't the individual that was making the hack accusation originally to me come back? Because he like you are full of shit. That's why.

Even though I may appreciate the style of the old Admiral I am forever grateful that he isn't out to sea in a submarine with nuclear weapons codes. He's just freaky enough to do something really stupid kind of like his little article that started this thread.

Hack. Infreakingdeed.

On edit, I'm sorry for the delay but I've had to reboot my computer about 10 times tonight. I think I've picked up a bug or something. It keeps taking me to pages that I don't ask it to and freezing up immediately after getting off the unwanted page.

Happy Holidays

Psychoblues

[NightTrain]

Go back through the thread very slowly, NT. Who called who a hack on the front end and what was the response. And who cutely and without following any link said, "I was thinking the same thing" or something of that nature. Why were you thinking the same thing and why did the individual that was making the hack accusation originally to me come back? Be cause he like you are full of shit. That's why.

Okay then, let's rewind the Hands of Time:

He's a hack.


Even though I may appreciate the style of the old Admiral I am forever grateful that he isn't out to sea in a submarine with nuclear weapons codes. He's just freaky enough to do something really stupid kind of like his little article that started this thread.

I can appreciate you not getting past PFC - the NCOs spotted your mental weakness and that is proof to me that our military system is functional. FYI, there are two people that are required to "turn the key" on a Boomer. Not that you've ever been on one. Washing dishes in San Diego isn't exactly RAdm level.


Hack. Infreakingdeed.

Attaboy.


Hack? Talk to that old retired Admiral and get back with me about hack, OK?


or the old retired Admiral/part time political hack that is blowing all this out his ass.


I don't put any faith whatsoever in that man's opinion in this matter of such great national security.

You still won't give any solid basis for your opinion. You say you disagree with a Rear Admiral, but yet you won't give reasons why.

Other than being an ObamaBot, what are your reasons for disagreeing with the Rear Admiral?

[NightTrain]

On edit, I'm sorry for the delay but I've had to reboot my computer about 10 times tonight. I think I've picked up a bug or something. It keeps taking me to pages that I don't ask it to and freezing up immediately after getting off the unwanted page.

I've heard that the gay donkey sites have a lot of bugs, I volunteer help on a Pro site and most of the people asking for help have tried to see things that man wasn't meant to do or see.

Steer clear of Gay Donkey sites, David.

[Psychoblues]

I was an E-6 in 12 years, NT. I never did Navy so naturally I don't know much about it. I did ICBM's at Whiteman AFB, MO and there it also took at least 2 and sometimes 3 if 3 were in between shifts. I was out to the sites about every day for 5 or 6 months. As far as you are concerned I'm about done with you. You're a fuckin' idiot and I can't help you with that.

Psychoblues

[NightTrain]

I was an E-6 in 12 years, NT. I never did Navy so naturally I don't know much about it. I did ICBM's at Whiteman AFB, MO and there it also took at least 2 and sometimes 3 if 3 were in between shifts. I was out to the sites about every day for 5 or 6 months. As far as you are concerned I'm about done with you. You're a fuckin' idiot and I can't help you with that.

Psychoblues

Awesome!!!! :clap::clap::clap:

Now then, back to business :

How is the Rear Admiral wrong? Answer or admit you have no fucking idea what you're talking about.

[Psychoblues]

Awesome!!!! :clap::clap::clap:

Now then, back to business :

How is the Rear Admiral wrong? Answer or admit you have no fucking idea what you're talking about.

Did you read the article? Are you aware of the legislation that just overwhelmingly and bipartisanly passed in this regard? The old coot is out there on a limb and it doesn't appear anybody is going to rescue him. You're certainly not doing your part.

Psychoblues

[NightTrain]

Did you read the article? Are you aware of the legislation that just overwhelmingly and bipartisanly passed in this regard? The old coot is out there on a limb and it doesn't appear anybody is going to rescue him. You're certainly not doing your part.

Psychoblues


I'm doing my part by trying to qualify your statements.

You stated that the RAdm was a hack. How do you qualify that?

[Psychoblues]

I'm doing my part by trying to qualify your statements.

You stated that the RAdm was a hack. How do you qualify that?

He does that on his own, NT. I've asked you repeatedly to read the fucking article, through this thread and use your own noggin for something other than to beat against the sidewalk.

Psychoblues

[NightTrain]

He does that on his own, NT. I've asked you repeatedly to read the fucking article, through this thread and use your own noggin for something other than to beat against the sidewalk.

Psychoblues

You made the statement (multiple times!), it is your responsibility to provide reasoning or links to support your statement.

You know this, I spanked you on the previous board dozens of times.

You said the RAdm is a hack, I want to see why you would confidently put that out there and expect the rest of us to believe you.

What the hell is the holdup, David?

I know you can't provide backup, I want you to admit that you have no basis and you simply vomited an attack on the RAdm out of reflex. I think it is readily apparent to anyone reading this thread and the way you dance away that you can't answer the question.

You know you're cornered; the least you can do is be a man about it and admit you were foolish with your statements.

Last time I'll ask you:

Where is the Rear Admiral wrong? And why?

[Psychoblues]

You made the statement (multiple times!), it is your responsibility to provide reasoning or links to support your statement.

You know this, I spanked you on the previous board dozens of times.

You said the RAdm is a hack, I want to see why you would confidently put that out there and expect the rest of us to believe you.

What the hell is the holdup, David?

I know you can't provide backup, I want you to admit that you have no basis and you simply vomited an attack on the RAdm out of reflex. I think it is readily apparent to anyone reading this thread and the way you dance away that you can't answer the question.

You know you're cornered; the least you can do is be a man about it and admit you were foolish with your statements.

Last time I'll ask you:

Where is the Rear Admiral wrong? And why?

In your fucking dreams, punk. The ol' man is a hack pure and simple.

Psychoblues

[NightTrain]

In your fucking dreams, punk. The ol' man is a hack pure and simple.

Psychoblues

Thank You.
:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

You're better than you were a couple months ago, but even at your best 8 years ago you were only as good as you just demonstrated.

It's amazing to me that you're as old as you are and still don't see the light.

Next time actually think about what you're defending instead of Democrat/Republican attack/defend.

Oh, and I think everyone would respect you for getting your ass whipped and acknowledging it - that's what a man does. I keep having to explain that simple concept to liberals like you and that's something even my 7-year-old son knows.

Your father failed you, but you can still learn to be a man.

[Psychoblues]

Thank You.
:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

You're better than you were a couple months ago, but even at your best 8 years ago you were only as good as you just demonstrated.

It's amazing to me that you're as old as you are and still don't see the light.

Next time actually think about what you're defending instead of Democrat/Republican attack/defend.

Oh, and I think everyone would respect you for getting your ass whipped and acknowledging it - that's what a man does. I keep having to explain that simple concept to liberals like you and that's something even my 7-year-old son knows.

Your father failed you, but you can still learn to be a man.

You're nothing more than a punk that can't read and can't comprehend. You're as bad as the old coot of an Admiral. And don't bring my father into this conversation. You obviously wouldn't make a pimple on my father's ass and I've got more man in my left nut than you and your father would ever have in a lifetime. Dig it?

Stamp your feet, whine, cry and say it ain't so all you want. The evidence is plain that the old coot is a contrarian, against President Obama whatever the cost or issue, opinionated on things he knows nothing about and sadly overstepping his position as a lecturer at the Naval Institute and into the world of politics and international policy. In other words, he's a damned political hack and I expect to see more of him on faux news in trhe near future.

Psychoblues

[NightTrain]

You're nothing more than a punk that can't read and can't comprehend. You're as bad as the old coot of an Admiral. And don't bring my father into this conversation. You obviously wouldn't make a pimple on my father's ass and I've got more man in my left nut than you and your father would ever have in a lifetime. Dig it?

Stamp your feet, whine, cry and say it ain't so all you want. The evidence is plain that the old coot is a contrarian, against President Obama whatever the cost or issue, opinionated on things he knows nothing about and sadly overstepping his position as a lecturer at the Naval Institute and into the world of politics and international policy. In other words, he's a damned political hack and I expect to see more of him on faux news in trhe near future.

Psychoblues

You still haven't addressed the question :

How is the RAdm a hack? How is he wrong?

[NightTrain]

You're nothing more than a punk that can't read and can't comprehend. You're as bad as the old coot of an Admiral. And don't bring my father into this conversation. You obviously wouldn't make a pimple on my father's ass and I've got more man in my left nut than you and your father would ever have in a lifetime. Dig it?

My family has fought in every war the United States has engaged in.

We don't have pussy liberals like you within our ranks because our fathers taught us better. We know there are times to fight and times for peace, as opposed to the hippie crap that you and your pussy family subscribe to.

While your Grandfather was sitting in jail for protesting, mine was getting stabbed by a bayonet in the left arm after charging a jap cave on Okinawa and taking two rounds in the forearm. He got the PH for that.

My girlfriend wants me in bed, so I'll end now.

Your pussy liberal shit galls me and every other red blooded American. Move your pussy ass to France and teach any offspring you get lucky enough to have to wave that white flag.

[Psychoblues]

My family has fought in every war the United States has engaged in.

We don't have pussy liberals like you within our ranks because our fathers taught us better. We know there are times to fight and times for peace, as opposed to the hippie crap that you and your pussy family subscribe to.

While your Grandfather was sitting in jail for protesting, mine was getting stabbed by a bayonet in the left arm after charging a jap cave on Okinawa and taking two rounds in the forearm. He got the PH for that.

My girlfriend wants me in bed, so I'll end now.

Your pussy liberal shit galls me and every other red blooded American. Move your pussy ass to France and teach any offspring you get lucky enough to have to wave that white flag.

You saying something to me, NT? I had to go take a shit. It was a short little stubby stinking sonofabitch and reminded me a lot of you. I disposed of it much the same way I could dispose of you.

Psychoblues

[jimnyc]

David, this is what I meant in the other thread when I stated you fail to backup what you say all the time. You make a "serious" comment about and Admiral in this thread, but when pressed to discuss your comments you run away.

You say this Admiral was insubordinate to so many in our government - but does a "retired" Admiral still actually answer to them?

The men you held up as heroes were active military I believe, but no mention of insubordination about them.

Sounds like you got your scruples a little mixed up.

But seriously, the FACT is that it was OK to you when it was done to a sitting (R) president, by active leaders, but now you call it insubordination when it's a (D) in office and the words are spoken by someone who is retired. Odd.

[Missileman]

Do your reading comprehension skills typify your general intelligence level, Mm? I suggest you re-read the post and this time slow down, concentrate and try to make things happen in your mind that make sense to you. On the other hand it may be your purpose to obfuscate the gist and effectively change the subject. Or, it may be that you're just that freaking dumb as to associate what you said with what I wrote. If I showed you a thousand or even just 10 credible articles from anybody or any credible source would it effect your thinking? I think not but you might go on a research mission of your own and come up with something. Let's see how you can do on that, OK? I think that is entirely more fair in the overall, don't you?

I am satisfied that the President, the State Department, the nonpartisan DoD (nonpartisan, HA), every single intelligence agency in the nation and the overwhelming bipartisan majority in the congress and Senate that voted for this legislation know just a little more than you, or me, or the old retired Admiral/part time political hack that is blowing all this out his ass.

Happy Christmas and Merry New Year!!!!!!!!!

Psychoblues

My request was not even remotely unreasonable. Your claim was 1000 genuine MILITARY opinions that we got a good deal with START. I asked you to post just 1%. Now you crawfish and try to change the subject to POLITICAL opinion.

When you post ten genuine MILITARY opinions that we got a good deal with START, I will in fact accept that we got a good deal and consider the matter closed.

[Psychoblues]

David, this is what I meant in the other thread when I stated you fail to backup what you say all the time. You make a "serious" comment about and Admiral in this thread, but when pressed to discuss your comments you run away.

You say this Admiral was insubordinate to so many in our government - but does a "retired" Admiral still actually answer to them?

The men you held up as heroes were active military I believe, but no mention of insubordination about them.

Sounds like you got your scruples a little mixed up.

But seriously, the FACT is that it was OK to you when it was done to a sitting (R) president, by active leaders, but now you call it insubordination when it's a (D) in office and the words are spoken by someone who is retired. Odd.

Jim, you are the one that called me a "hack" and I responded to you to go talk to the old Admiral about "hack" and get back with me. Others put more into that than I said but that's OK by me. By YOUR observed standards I think the old Admiral is just that, a political hack with no reasons other than his hatred for this President while making his remarks. This is contentious and subjective but I think I have as much right to express my observations and opinions as anyone else. And I did not run away when pressed. How many hours did I spend last night and this morning trying to explain my position only for it all to fall on very deaf or ignorant or wildly imaginative ears? I established my "opinion" as stated with facts and additional comment. Continuing that ridiculous conversation would not be productive.

You are correct that the old Admiral was indeed not "insubordinate" in the classic military sense but as a lecturer at the Naval Institute his opinions in areas in which he is not involved and that he has no recent knowledge of standards and negotiations he is overstepping his professional position and further revealing his motives as, for lack of a better word and only another "opinion" on my part, unjustified.

Those good MEN that kept gwb at bay by offering up their resignations if he continued his bush doctrine pre-emptive war into Iran were heroes in my opinion and in the opinions of millions of fellow Americans and probably at least a million or so of our fighting best. Those MEN knew exactly what war in Iran meant and had only the best reasons for not wanting our country to enter that quagmire and death trap. Even then, they didn't go around running their mouths to the press and snafuing the other motives of gwb. They did exercize their legal and responsible rights as Officers in the US military and Intelligence Services and offer up their resignations. Officers can do that at ANY time they want.

I don't have my scruples mixed up, Jim. I think you do. Get a little critical thinking skills under your belt (or should I say above the belt? We all know what critical thinking with that head under the belt does to us) when it comes to these national and military issues and hopefully you'll do better in the future.

What was done in the case of the sitting (R) president in no way replicates or associates the remarks of this Admiral toward a sitting (D) President and done so on a personal level. How do you contort your brain to make such comparisons? I think I've already addressed your other statements, Jim. The Admiral ran off his mouth with nothing to verify his thinking as accurate or even honestly considerable of the international nuclear policy of the United States of America. Like me, don't you expect to be seeing more of him on FauxNews in trhe near future?

Happy Holidays

Psychoblues

[Psychoblues]

My request was not even remotely unreasonable. Your claim was 1000 genuine MILITARY opinions that we got a good deal with START. I asked you to post just 1%. Now you crawfish and try to change the subject to POLITICAL opinion.

When you post ten genuine MILITARY opinions that we got a good deal with START, I will in fact accept that we got a good deal and consider the matter closed.

And I asked you to go back and re-read the post and the rest of the thread, Mm. You continue to obfuscate the gist of my remark and be dishonest as to your request for something I never offered to produce. There is a lot of information and opinion in this thread, Mm. Why don't you go back through it and find where I promised to produce even ONE letter or article. But, you might enjoy some of the other comments!!!!!

I also encouraged you to do your own research if the latest legislation and recently made public intelligence reports don't at least give you rise to curiosity. It's all out there if you'll just go looking for it.

Happy Holidays

Psychoblues

[Missileman]

And I asked you to go back and re-read the post and the rest of the thread, Mm. You continue to obfuscate the gist of my remark and be dishonest as to your request for something I never offered to produce. There is a lot of information and opinion in this thread, Mm. Why don't you go back through it and find where I promised to produce even ONE letter or article. But, you might enjoy some of the other comments!!!!!

I also encouraged you to do your own research if the latest legislation and recently made public intelligence reports don't at least give you rise to curiosity. It's all out there if you'll just go looking for it.

Happy Holidays

Psychoblues

I never said you promised to...you did however claim you could come up with a thousand...I merely asked you to post a few. All I've seen you do so far is try to change the subject. Why don't you just admit that you overstated your position and that not only can't you post a thousand, you can't find ANY? You think the new START is peachy ONLY because the traitor in chief penned it...why don't you act like you have a set and admit it?

Browse this assessment of what's wrong with START and see if you can find ANY sources that say these 12 things aren't really anything to be concerned about.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/09/Twelve-Flaws-of-New-START-That-Will-Be-Difficult-to-Fix

[jimnyc]

I don't have my scruples mixed up, Jim. I think you do. Get a little critical thinking skills under your belt (or should I say above the belt? We all know what critical thinking with that head under the belt does to us) when it comes to these national and military issues and hopefully you'll do better in the future.

Please don't infer that you can possibly know more about anything than me. No offense, I do like you, David, but quite frankly I find your opinions warped and your debating skills laughable. In fact, you are more than welcome to go to the debate forums below and pick pretty much ANY subject and I will be happy to debate with you.


How many hours did I spend last night and this morning trying to explain my position only for it all to fall on very deaf or ignorant or wildly imaginative ears?

Yes, all them post and you 100% repeatedly ignored and/or dodged NT's direct questions. That's why I ask you to choose a topic/subject and we can have a "real" debate if you like. Put your non-stop trash talking where it counts. YOU pick ANY subject, and so long as we have differing opinions, I will debate you.

And again, I honestly do like you as a friend, David. I think you're a funny guy and at times have some "unique" perspectives. But when it comes to debating most serious subjects, you are full of hot air and partisan politics, and empty on being "serious" and having citations to backup your opinions when called on it.

[jimnyc]

I never said you promised to...you did however claim you could come up with a thousand...I merely asked you to post a few. All I've seen you do so far is try to change the subject. Why don't you just admit that you overstated your position and that not only can't you post a thousand, you can't find ANY? You think the new START is peachy ONLY because the traitor in chief penned it...why don't you act like you have a set and admit it?

Browse this assessment of what's wrong with START and see if you can find ANY sources that say these 12 things aren't really anything to be concerned about.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/09/Twelve-Flaws-of-New-START-That-Will-Be-Difficult-to-Fix

IMO, you're wasting your time. NT spent the entire night trying to get ONE answer from him and was repeatedly denied.

[jimnyc]

And while we're at it, why not humor us, David, and go back and answer NT's question. You'll be hard pressed to get many to have a dialogue with you if they just witnessed you ignore someones questions for several pages.

[Psychoblues]

I never said you promised to...you did however claim you could come up with a thousand...I merely asked you to post a few. All I've seen you do so far is try to change the subject. Why don't you just admit that you overstated your position and that not only can't you post a thousand, you can't find ANY? You think the new START is peachy ONLY because the traitor in chief penned it...why don't you act like you have a set and admit it?

Browse this assessment of what's wrong with START and see if you can find ANY sources that say these 12 things aren't really anything to be concerned about.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/09/Twelve-Flaws-of-New-START-That-Will-Be-Difficult-to-Fix

I am trying top be as civil here as possible, Mm. But, you are a fucking liar, up and down, inside and out. I will not requote my exact words concerning the subject you seem to be so confused about but I did not say what you say that I did or even imply what you say I did.

And the Heritage Foundation has been proven so completely wrong, so hateful, so partisan and so unfaithful to the ideals of the America that I love that I don't bother myself with anything they have to say anymore. Heritage Foundation? Complete fail. Do you have any credible sources of addional information?

Happy Holidays

Psychoblues

[jimnyc]

I believe I could find you a thousand genuine articles by military and diplomatic genius's that dispute that kind of thinking and it probably wouldn't change your mind,

This is what MM is referring to, and you know damn well, yet you continually refuse to post just ONE like he is asking.


IMO, you're wasting your time. NT spent the entire night trying to get ONE answer from him and was repeatedly denied.

Sorry to say, MM, but I was right apparently. PB always makes outlandish and ridiculous claims and then refuses to discuss appropriately or post citations to back his stuff up.

[Psychoblues]

I believe I could find you a thousand genuine articles by military and diplomatic genius's that dispute that kind of thinking and it probably wouldn't change your mind,

Do I need to break that sentence down one word at a time for you to understand what it means or are you going to continue the bullshit lines that you are spewing, jim. You, Mm and NT want to misconstrrue everything I say and swear up and down that's the way it is. Well, that may be for some very weak minded individuals but what you are saying and implying is very distant from the truth.

I've already reminded you of your own standars for accusing someone of being a "hack" yet you continue to again misconstrue the gist of both these conversations held much earlier in the thread but have unnecessarilly consumed much of the rest of it. Laughable? You got that right!!!!!

Oh, and I never dodged a single question from NT. He refused to accept that his interpretation of what I actually said was wrong. I admitted to you that I was OK with that but based on YOUR clearly demonstrated standards and definitions the old coot is certainly a "hack" as YOU put it.

As far as debates go, you said years ago there are rarely winners and losers. I understood that to be a subjective overview of an objective endeavor. I have rarely seen a credible debate on this Debate Policy board. I've seen a lot of shit slinging, accusations, denials galore and boatloads of bullshit but honest debates are indeed very rare and I might say seem to be discouraged on this board. And if you are honest with yourself I think you will agree with that.

I appreciate your stated fondness for me, jim, as I am and have been for years fond of you, your opinions (even the ridiculous ones) and the board that you provide for all of us to throw crap at each other on. I hope this New Year will bring better tidings of good cheer, better conversations (debates) and a skosh more honesty not just here but everywhere. I always strive for a better world but in particular I strive for a better nation.

Merry Christmas

Psychoblues

[jimnyc]

Of course you have my wishes for the holidays and the upcoming New Year, David!!

I won't continue a useless thread though and leave you to anyone else that would like to continue.

I just think when you call someone of such prominence a "hack", it's different than you or I calling one another that. And I don't think it's unreasonable for other members to want an explanation as to how you got to labeling him that and how/where he is wrong. If you think you've answered those questions already, so be it.

But there are a few things that we DO know for facts in this thread.

1- You think the Admiral is a hack.
2- You called him insubordinate for speaking out against Obama
3- There's a link to another thread where you showed us active Generals and Admirals discussing GWB
4- You certainly never inferred they were insubordinate
5- You never stated any of them were hacks

A quick read through this thread by a guest and they might make the mistake of thinking you took 2 different sides under similar circumstances but had 2 different viewpoints, based on (D) and (R). No offense, but I thought THAT was the very definition of a hack.

[Missileman]

I am trying top be as civil here as possible, Mm. But, you are a fucking liar, up and down, inside and out. I will not requote my exact words concerning the subject you seem to be so confused about but I did not say what you say that I did or even imply what you say I did.

I did misread your statement. So let me ask you straight up...do you have any genuine articles by military or diplomatic geniuses that say START is a good deal for the US.



And the Heritage Foundation has been proven so completely wrong, so hateful, so partisan and so unfaithful to the ideals of the America that I love that I don't bother myself with anything they have to say anymore. Heritage Foundation? Complete fail. Do you have any credible sources of addional information?

:link::link::link:
If you're going to disqualify a source, you'll need to put up some evidence as to why they shouldn't be believed.

[Gaffer]

This is why, in spite of his being sober, he remains on my ignore list. You can't debate stupid.

[Psychoblues]

Of course you have my wishes for the holidays and the upcoming New Year, David!!

I won't continue a useless thread though and leave you to anyone else that would like to continue.

I just think when you call someone of such prominence a "hack", it's different than you or I calling one another that. And I don't think it's unreasonable for other members to want an explanation as to how you got to labeling him that and how/where he is wrong. If you think you've answered those questions already, so be it.

But there are a few things that we DO know for facts in this thread.

1- You think the Admiral is a hack.
2- You called him insubordinate for speaking out against Obama
3- There's a link to another thread where you showed us active Generals and Admirals discussing GWB
4- You certainly never inferred they were insubordinate
5- You never stated any of them were hacks

A quick read through this thread by a guest and they might make the mistake of thinking you took 2 different sides under similar circumstances but had 2 different viewpoints, based on (D) and (R). No offense, but I thought THAT was the very definition of a hack.

I appreciate your wishes for me and your response here, jimnyc.

I have tried to keep things brief through this thread and that seems to make things more confusing for some. But, I am going again to attempt some brief explanation and response to those assumptions you are incorrectly drawing.

1. Although I didn't say that at first I also later said that I thought he was a hack. That seemed to make for some exciting albeit rather ignorant assed dialogue. The ol' Adm. goes against all conventional wisdom and authority and spews his mouth about things with which he has no recent experience and he has no experience at all that I can find for ever being in any position to negotiate international treaties. He uses Obama by name. He clearly has something against Obama the President and Obama the man. I can't put my finger on it but there is something strange about that Retired Rear Admiral.

2. Yes, I did call him insubordinate and came back later, apologized and explained all of that. Do we need to go into all of that again just for old times sake or are there new questions?

3. They were not discussing gwb. They were discussing their concern for US entry into another middle east war pre emptively and unwisely and ill equipped with manpower and materials and their personal decisions to excuse themselves from continued military and intelligence gathering involvement if the madness of that murderous consideration continued and possibly put the blood of America's best on the line in a war so wrong and ill advised. They did not then go out into the media with their disagreement on that issue and they did not make addional comment or complaint as to the objectives of gwb. Apples and oranges, jim. Totally different circumstances, issues and even personal attitudes. Any comparison with the thoughts of the old coot and those American heroes that can arguably be recognized for having saved the lives of thousands of America's best is ludicrous.

4. That's because they weren't insubordinate, jimnyc. The military officers offered up their resignations for which they are entitled at any time of their choosing and the intelligence officers being civilians can always decide quitting is better than serving under the quise of intelligence in such a stupid and uncalled for exercise of juvenile abuse of presidential power. The bolded part is all my words and opinion, not the words or opinions of the intelligence officers. They were all professionals and heroes in my minds eye and in the opinions of millions more, ditto, and I am for certain that all the troops that were not harmed or killed in that deathtrap would feel much the same if they could know their fate there. You did note that we are not involved in that crazy war in Iraq didn't you, jim? We may very well be at war in Iran even in the near future but for the time I will defer to the opinions of those better than the old average American heroes.

I think your overview of "hack" is accurate. I am not a "hack" in this case but I do belive the old coot is. That is a belief of mine and not necessarily a fact. Spouting beliefs and opinions v verifiable facts around here is common place every day. Are you suggesting that I should be held to any different or higher standard, jimnyc?

Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays to you and yours from me and lil' Red!!!!

Psychoblues

[Psychoblues]

This is why, in spite of his being sober, he remains on my ignore list. You can't debate stupid.

Yeah, I know what you mean, guffer. You have showed your ignorance for years and it hasn't changed a thing.

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year

Psychoblues

[Psychoblues]

I did misread your statement. So let me ask you straight up...do you have any genuine articles by military or diplomatic geniuses that say START is a good deal for the US.




:link::link::link:
If you're going to disqualify a source, you'll need to put up some evidence as to why they shouldn't be believed.

If I did would you change your mind or at least consider the overwhelming evidence that the Adm. is an opinionated old coot that needs to stick to his specialty as a lecturer at the Naval Institute and out of international diplomacy and treaties and certainly not be condemning the President just because he obviously disagrees with an international policy that he doesn't understand?

There is ample evidence in many places to back up my overview of the Heritage Foundation as well as my many years of watching them and checking out their mostly opinionated and entirely wrong positions on any number of issues. Like all politics, sometimes we just have to agree to disagree.

On edit: The collective work of the entire State Department, the entire Intelligence services, the entire congress and Senate of these United States of America and even the President of the United States of America thinks this is a good deal for us. I happen to agree with that accessment and reject the unqualified remarks of the admiral.

Happy Christmas and Merry New Year

Psychoblues

[jimnyc]

Well, David, I appreciate your detailed and lengthy reply. I do understand better, to an extent, what your thoughts are/were. While we can just let the "petty" stuff go by the way, I think myself and a few others would still like to know how you can determine what this Admiral said is wrong and how he is a hack. Can you point out, specifically, what it is he is wrong about? Based loosely on what most would consider a "hack" aka "political hack" - what specifically written there ties in with your determination on this?

It's 12:01, Christmas is officially over.

Only 364 more shopping days until Christmas!! :)

[Psychoblues]

Well, David, I appreciate your detailed and lengthy reply. I do understand better, to an extent, what your thoughts are/were. While we can just let the "petty" stuff go by the way, I think myself and a few others would still like to know how you can determine what this Admiral said is wrong and how he is a hack. Can you point out, specifically, what it is he is wrong about? Based loosely on what most would consider a "hack" aka "political hack" - what specifically written there ties in with your determination on this?

It's 12:01, Christmas is officially over.

Only 364 more shopping days until Christmas!! :)

I will give it a better and I hope more linked up overview when I can, jim, but any casual reading of what the Admiral says reveals an agenda unfriendly to the President, the treaty and as far as I am concerned the country. He is entitled to his opinion and outside his constant qualifications I am certain his opinion is a better bet than my own. I am also entitled to an opinion and I think I have at least demonstrated in this thread that my opinions are based on verifiable information. Much if not most of what the old admiral has to say cannot be easily verified and some not at all.

Remember, jim, it is YOU that brought "hack" into this conversation.

364 days? Don't freakin' remind me!!!!!!!!! I'm going freakin' NUTS if not just NUTTIER!!!!!!!!

Happy Holidays

Psychoblues

[jimnyc]

I will give it a better and I hope more linked up overview when I can, jim, but any casual reading of what the Admiral says reveals an agenda unfriendly to the President, the treaty and as far as I am concerned the country. He is entitled to his opinion and outside his constant qualifications I am certain his opinion is a better bet than my own. I am also entitled to an opinion and I think I have at least demonstrated in this thread that my opinions are based on verifiable information. Much if not most of what the old admiral has to say cannot be easily verified and some not at all.

Remember, jim, it is YOU that brought "hack" into this conversation.

364 days? Don't freakin' remind me!!!!!!!!! I'm going freakin' NUTS if not just NUTTIER!!!!!!!!

Happy Holidays

Psychoblues

Doesn't matter if I was the 1st to use the word hack in this thread. You were the ONLY one who used it in reference to the Admiral, and it's that reference we are asking about. But I'll wait for your more detailed reply that addresses the specifics I asked about in my prior post.

[Psychoblues]

Doesn't matter if I was the 1st to use the word hack in this thread. You were the ONLY one who used it in reference to the Admiral, and it's that reference we are asking about. But I'll wait for your more detailed reply that addresses the specifics I asked about in my prior post.

I am satisfied that I have already given you all the information you need for any reasonable conversation. Do I need to go back though and point by point give it all to you again? No one here has bothered to dispute anything I've said but only to ask for more. That is the habit of another poster here that is despised by practically all that know him.

I told you that I will when I can give a more detailed and linked up accounting and I also told you that much if not most or all of what the Admiral has to say cannot be easily verified and again most if not all cannot be verified at all. Remember what I said a little earlier about there being something a little strange about that lecturer?

He is clearly not a state department professional and in fact I don't consider him to be a professional in any consideration just based on that one article.

I was telling NT last night that I'm having all kinds of 'puter problems. I've got pages popping up that I never called for and when I x them back out my machine immediately freezes up, I have to reboot, and I need google to do what I am telling you I will do but the machine freezes up EVERY time I go there. I have good malware but this thing is kicking my ass.

Keep on the sunny side of the road, jimnyc.

Happy Holidays

Psychoblues

[SassyLady]

On edit: The collective work of the entire State Department, the entire Intelligence services, the entire congress and Senate of these United States of America and even the President of the United States of America thinks this is a good deal for us. I happen to agree with that accessment and reject the unqualified remarks of the admiral.


Psychoblues

How many of them actually read the entire treaty? How many of them were allowed to read the transcripts from the negotiations to see what else we agreed to? Perhaps we'll find out when the next round of Wikileaks hits the internet.

[SassyLady]

J
Those good MEN that kept gwb at bay by offering up their resignations if he continued his bush doctrine pre-emptive war into Iran were heroes in my opinion and in the opinions of millions of fellow Americans and probably at least a million or so of our fighting best. Those MEN knew exactly what war in Iran meant and had only the best reasons for not wanting our country to enter that quagmire and death trap. Even then, they didn't go around running their mouths to the press and snafuing the other motives of gwb. They did exercize their legal and responsible rights as Officers in the US military and Intelligence Services and offer up their resignations. Officers can do that at ANY time they want.



Can you please link to who these good men are? A link that verifies they offered up their resignations?

[Kathianne]

Please don't infer that you can possibly know more about anything than me. No offense, I do like you, David, but quite frankly I find your opinions warped and your debating skills laughable. In fact, you are more than welcome to go to the debate forums below and pick pretty much ANY subject and I will be happy to debate with you.



Yes, all them post and you 100% repeatedly ignored and/or dodged NT's direct questions. That's why I ask you to choose a topic/subject and we can have a "real" debate if you like. Put your non-stop trash talking where it counts. YOU pick ANY subject, and so long as we have differing opinions, I will debate you.

And again, I honestly do like you as a friend, David. I think you're a funny guy and at times have some "unique" perspectives. But when it comes to debating most serious subjects, you are full of hot air and partisan politics, and empty on being "serious" and having citations to backup your opinions when called on it.

I really have to agree with Jim regarding the preponderance of your posts, PB.



I too wish it were different, I'm hoping it will be going forward.

Doing the same:

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?30263-Intimidation-Under-Guise-of-Holidays&p=456580#post456580

[Missileman]

If I did would you change your mind or at least consider the overwhelming evidence that the Adm. is an opinionated old coot that needs to stick to his specialty as a lecturer at the Naval Institute and out of international diplomacy and treaties and certainly not be condemning the President just because he obviously disagrees with an international policy that he doesn't understand?

I guess we'll never know...you won't or more likely can't post anything for me to consider.


There is ample evidence in many places to back up my overview of the Heritage Foundation as well as my many years of watching them and checking out their mostly opinionated and entirely wrong positions on any number of issues. Like all politics, sometimes we just have to agree to disagree.

Again, I'll accept just one example of the Heritage Foundation being caught in a lie as enough evidence to disqualify their opinion. All you need to do is post one.


On edit: The collective work of the entire State Department, the entire Intelligence services, the entire congress and Senate of these United States of America and even the President of the United States of America thinks this is a good deal for us. I happen to agree with that accessment and reject the unqualified remarks of the admiral.

Happy Christmas and Merry New Year

Psychoblues

There wasn't unanimous agreement about the treaty within the federal government. Why isn't DoD on your list?

[NightTrain]

Well, I thought I'd test the waters there to see if anything had changed since he supposedly sobered up, but it was a complete waste of time on my part and Jim's bandwidth.

This year I resolve to treat PB the same as Gabby - a drive by poster with nothing substantial to back up outlandish claims driven by loyalty to the DemoRats alone.

[Psychoblues]

How many of them actually read the entire treaty? How many of them were allowed to read the transcripts from the negotiations to see what else we agreed to? Perhaps we'll find out when the next round of Wikileaks hits the internet.

I don't know how many of them read the entire treaty, SL, but I would hope all of them that voted at least had some strong familiarity with what they were signing. I can't speak for their derilection. Maybe you can. And the treaty was indeed ratified by the "entire congress and Senate". Are you denying that fact? As far as the transcripts of which you speak I remain certain that all for which they were entitled to see were made available. If you have credible information that would dispute that observation I would like to see it. I, too, anticipate the next round of Wikileaks exposures. I find those documents and heretofore unknown information fascinating, don't you?

Psychoblues

[Psychoblues]

Can you please link to who these good men are? A link that verifies they offered up their resignations?

There is a link earlier in this thread that jimnyc placed into this conversation concerning that exact thing, SL. If you need additional iunformation please be aware that Google is yo0ur friend.

Psychoblues

[fj1200]

And the treaty was indeed ratified by the "entire congress and Senate". Are you denying that fact?

Since when does the "entire congress" ratify treaties?


He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;

[Psychoblues]

I really have to agree with Jim regarding the preponderance of your posts, PB.



I too wish it were different, I'm hoping it will be going forward.

Doing the same:

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?30263-Intimidation-Under-Guise-of-Holidays&p=456580#post456580

I don't preponder much, Kath, and I don't understand why you, Jim and others want to hold me to a higher standard than you do yourselves and other posters? I'm OK with ridiculous demands as they usually say more about the ridiculous demander than anything about me but I do note the difference and others do as well. Que Sera Sera.

I don't understand your link and it's relevance to this conversation but please don't confuse these issues here any further. It seems that most of the confusion here are two things that 1. I did not say at all and 2. I only alluded to after I was accused of the same. Truly ridiculous, don't you think?

Psychoblues

[Psychoblues]

I guess we'll never know...you won't or more likely can't post anything for me to consider.

You may never know. That's your problem.


Again, I'll accept just one example of the Heritage Foundation being caught in a lie as enough evidence to disqualify their opinion. All you need to do is post one.

I have found them misrepresenting issue after issue. I thought I resolved this issue with you when I told you that we may have to just agree to disagree on this matter.


There wasn't unanimous agreement about the treaty within the federal government. Why isn't DoD on your list?

I'm not certain if DoD is a signatory to this ratification process but from every indication I have seen they would have done their part to see that the ratification was completed positively. And If you go a little earlier in this thread you will find that I did mention the DoD.

On edit: I'm trying to get this multi-quote thing figured out. I'm at least doing better but I have a long way to go it appears!


Psychoblues

[Psychoblues]

Well, I thought I'd test the waters there to see if anything had changed since he supposedly sobered up, but it was a complete waste of time on my part and Jim's bandwidth.

This year I resolve to treat PB the same as Gabby - a drive by poster with nothing substantial to back up outlandish claims driven by loyalty to the DemoRats alone.

You talking to me, NT? Remember what I told you about that little short stubby stinking turd?

Psychoblues

[Psychoblues]

Since when does the "entire congress" ratify treaties?

I, fj200, understand gist and overly stating facts to make points and in this case you are exactly correct and I sincerely apologize and that is no gist.

Psychoblues

[Kathianne]

I, fj200, understand gist and overly stating facts to make points and in this case you are exactly correct and I sincerely apologize and that is no gist.

Psychoblues

Just to be clear, we all know that only the Senate may approve treaties and approve executive appointments, right?

[Missileman]

I'm not certain if DoD is a signatory to this ratification process but from every indication I have seen they would have done their part to see that the ratification was completed positively. And If you go a little earlier in this thread you will find that I did mention the DoD.

On edit: I'm trying to get this multi-quote thing figured out. I'm at least doing better but I have a long way to go it appears!


Psychoblues

I'm still waiting for you to post anything other than "they must be wrong because they disagree with Obama" argument. You haven't provided a single reason why the Admiral's assessment isn't spot on. You also haven't provided a single reason (other than some lame unverifiable discreditation of THF) why the author that very clearly laid out 12 SIGNIFICANT problems with START shouldn't be believed.

Do you think START is a good deal for us when we can't develop and deploy defensive systems in response to a threat other than Russia? Can you even fathom how that kind of limitation restricts our response to a build up by Iran, NK, or even Venezuela?

That's just ONE of the problems with START.

[Psychoblues]

Just to be clear, we all know that only the Senate may approve treaties and approve executive appointments, right?

Yes. Did you not get that part about gist and overly stating facts?

Just kidding you, Kath!!!!!!!!

Psychoblues

[Psychoblues]

I'm still waiting for you to post anything other than "they must be wrong because they disagree with Obama" argument. You haven't provided a single reason why the Admiral's assessment isn't spot on. You also haven't provided a single reason (other than some lame unverifiable discreditation of THF) why the author that very clearly laid out 12 SIGNIFICANT problems with START shouldn't be believed.

Do you think START is a good deal for us when we can't develop and deploy defensive systems in response to a threat other than Russia? Can you even fathom how that kind of limitation restricts our response to a build up by Iran, NK, or even Venezuela?

That's just ONE of the problems with START.

You're blowing shit out your ass, Mm. I have said many times and everybody here including you (I think) understands that anybody, anything, any perception, any dream or aspiration, everything, absolutely EVERYTHING can be critisized. My thing is what is this criticism about, where is it coming from and why.

I cannot answer a question that you have not asked. That doesn't mean that I would in all circumstanses. Sometimes I perceive ulterior motives and I reserve my right to ignore you or anyone else in that event. Are you still worried a bout those thousands of letters and articles that I never said I could produce or even existed?

Do you need a diaper change?

Psychoblues

[fj1200]

I, fj200, understand gist and overly stating facts to make points and in this case you are exactly correct and I sincerely apologize and that is no gist.

I, Crazyb, understand when you're trying to understand more than you really know so here's the thing, try getting the easy facts correct and then move up to the more difficult ones.

[logroller]

Asking a nuclear weapons specialist about reducing nuclear proliferation will get you the same biased opinion and effect as sending a trained military to preserve peace. If and when a nuclear war becomes imminant, I'm sure we have enough weapons in place to accomplish complete annihilation of every enemy from pole to pole. Seeking a political victory with a former superpower, and former opponent nonetheless- kudos; at somepoint we can stop rellishing in how others kowtow to our atomic might and join with us to accomplish something great for humanity. So far as Iran is concerned, how the hell can we say their alleged pursuit of nuke weapons is wrong if we continue to do grow ours-- it's hypocritical and the world takes notice.

As a side note, I find it very peculiar how conservatives preach decreased government intervention domestically, but regard with fervor worldwide the subjugation of foreign interests to our own.

[Missileman]

You're blowing shit out your ass, Mm. I have said many times and everybody here including you (I think) understands that anybody, anything, any perception, any dream or aspiration, everything, absolutely EVERYTHING can be critisized. My thing is what is this criticism about, where is it coming from and why.

I have no problem with that. As yet though, you've yet to demonstrate ANY basis for you concerns about the criticisms...not a single basis other than they aren't in line with your messiah's ideas.

I asked you to show proof that THF is an unrelaible source...you haven't.

You've been asked repeatedly to show proof that the admiral's criticism is politically motivated...you haven't.


I cannot answer a question that you have not asked. That doesn't mean that I would in all circumstanses. Sometimes I perceive ulterior motives and I reserve my right to ignore you or anyone else in that event. Are you still worried a bout those thousands of letters and articles that I never said I could produce or even existed?

Do you need a diaper change?

Psychoblues

I already admitted that I misread that statement and dropped it. I see you want to re-open that line rather than actually answering my question. Do I need to point to the posts where I asked you the questions that remain unanswered? And if you're going to be an intellectual coward and duck questions you don't want to answer, please have the courtesy to identify them so I have an idea which ones you might have actually missed and which ones you are running from.

[Missileman]

Asking a nuclear weapons specialist about reducing nuclear proliferation will get you the same biased opinion and effect as sending a trained military to preserve peace. If and when a nuclear war becomes imminant, I'm sure we have enough weapons in place to accomplish complete annihilation of every enemy from pole to pole. Seeking a political victory with a former superpower, and former opponent nonetheless- kudos; at somepoint we can stop rellishing in how others kowtow to our atomic might and join with us to accomplish something great for humanity. So far as Iran is concerned, how the hell can we say their alleged pursuit of nuke weapons is wrong if we continue to do grow ours-- it's hypocritical and the world takes notice.

As a side note, I find it very peculiar how conservatives preach decreased government intervention domestically, but regard with fervor worldwide the subjugation of foreign interests to our own.

You've got your facts a little confused sport...our nuclear arsenal has been shrinking for decades.

[logroller]

You've got your facts a little confused sport...our nuclear arsenal has been shrinking for decades.

Ok, I'll give you that one-- I should have said "modify and maintain" as we'd peaked our possesion of fissile/fusion warheads in the early sixties. The fact we have enough nukes to blow any enemy to kingdom come remains. Shall we dabble in nuclear arsenal numbers, gross megatonnage of current inventories, their readiness for deployment and deliverability- or will you concede our destructive power is ample.

[SassyLady]

So far as Iran is concerned, how the hell can we say their alleged pursuit of nuke weapons is wrong if we continue to do grow ours-- it's hypocritical and the world takes notice.



Has our President threatened to wipe a country and their people off the face of the earth as Iran's leader frequently tells the world? I would think any sane person would be able to discern the difference.

[red states rule]

Has our President threatened to wipe a country and their people off the face of the earth as Iran's leader frequently tells the world? I would think any sane person would be able to discern the difference.

Some people will never learn one simple fact

America uses are nuclear weapons to ensure the peace while others want nuclear weapons to ensure destruction

America used a nuclear wepaon to put an end to a world war and we are criticized for that

[Gaffer]

There has always been a strategic reason to have more nuclear weapons than we need. If a country like russia, with thousands of nukes themselves, were to make a first strike, they could do a lot of serious damage to our forces. By having lots more nuclear missiles than needed we are able to insure retaliatory strike capability. It's that retaliatory capability that keeps everyone in check.

[logroller]

As a sane person, I struggle to comprehend how STARTII will weaken us to the point of vulnerability to a strategic nuclear war. Maybe this general has some inside info I'm not aware of, but did he provide such support, or just his former credentials.

I understand the logic behind retaliatory strike capability. The strategic concerns on this are well known, have been for a long time. The issue I see as a threat is the documentation of our capabilities; allowing a potential enemy to "size up" and strategically disable our strike capabilities.

My argument is STARTII doesn't decrease our capability, to any significant degree, as to encourage an enemy to strike first. The new start limits three entities: ICBM, SLBM and bomber-based nuclear weapons. It limits the number of warheads, the launchers and vehicles deployed for immediate strike in each of these three areas. The treaty limits the deployable US arsenal to 1550 total warheads, and 700 vehicles(bombs missiles etc). It also limits certain deployable structures, like launch tubes and silos. Our 12-14 strike subs, for example, will only be able to have 20/24 tubes ready for launch, though their other tubes won't be disabled, just unloaded. To add some bite to the bark, assuming only half of these warheads were employed with the latest generation of warhead, the W88 475kt warhead, loaded into the SLBM Trident II, with only 4 MIRV heads per missile (per SORT, a max of 12 capable)-- the boomer force alone can strike 480 separate targets with a destructive kill diameter of ~8km* and with a combined destructive power of 238 megatons of TNT that could eliminate 480 separate targets ~50* sq km in size -- not what I would consider an invitation to pick a fight, and that's just half of the SLBM capabilities under START II; we could do that twice and still have bombers and ground launched missiles (which admittedly are more vulnerable to first strike offenses).


* only a 100kt blast, couldn't find radius for 1/2mt

[Kathianne]

I'm not going into specifics, rather taking a historical viewpoint.

START as now agreed to will require Russia to rid itself of nuclear weapons it's having a devil of a time maintaining, if doing so at all. US will destroy weapons that are ready to use and also require limited development of new weapons in general.

While the above doesn't sound so bad, there were many issues that were problematic with the treaty, once again:

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/09/twelve-flaws-of-new-start-that-will-be-difficult-to-fix

Only the main points, explanations found at site:

Flaw #1: New START fails to speak to the issue of protecting and defending the U.S. and its allies against strategic attack.

Flaw #2: New START imposes restrictions on U.S. missile defense options.

Flaw #3: The atrophying U.S. nuclear arsenal and weapons enterprise make reductions in the U.S. strategic nuclear arsenal even more dangerous.

Flaw #4: New START counts conventional “prompt global strike” weapons against the numerical limits imposed on nuclear arms.

Flaw #5: The Obama Administration has made New START an essential part of a broader agenda that pursues the goals of nuclear nonprolifera*tion and nuclear disarmament concurrently.

Flaw #6: New START’s limits are uninformed by a targeting policy that is governed by the protect and defend strategy.

Flaw #7: New START leaves in place a large Russian advantage in nonstrategic (tactical) nuclear weapons.

Flaw #8: New START does not appear to limit rail-mobile intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs).

Flaw #9: The BCC’s mandate is overly broad.

Flaw #10: The New START limitations are unclear on whether they would permit the U.S. to counter future threats from a combination of states.

Flaw #11: New START is not adequately verifiable.[13]

Flaw #12: The Obama Administration believes that Russian cheating under New START is only a marginal concern.

While I agree all of these were worth addressing, I bolded the ones I find most problematic. In any case, it no longer matters, it's moot.

I think that watching spending is a wise thing, however we are and have been at war for over a decade now, too bad Congress failed to declare, but that's for another day. Truth is the military has been stretched very thin:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/american-military-already-doing-more-less

Now for the historical lessons on wishing for peace, which in all honesty is what this whole enchilada is about. Yes, the US spends more than the X number countries following, combined. Big problem are those following us are for the most part, our allies. It seems that our diplomatic efforts would be better spent in pressuring them to carry more of the weight.

The last time the world did what is now happening was that rosy period following WWI. The carnage and waste made Europe very leery of future conflicts, for good reasons. Well except for Germany. The failure of Versailles and onset of reparations, followed by the depression made it ripe for Hitler's rising. The rest of Europe had no problem playing ostrich, then appeasers. Neither brought peace. All that happened was Germany managed to build up their defenses that were unmatched by England and France, they only had the leftovers from WWI, not a good show there. Meanwhile Germany had cutting edge air force, army, and submarines. Only the British Navy could sort of hold its own.

If the US had been willing, which in all honesty wasn't our business to do, to stand up to Hitler's rebuilding in early 30's, things may have gone differently. If England and France had done so from a position of strength, a difference may have been made.

We are disarming, cutting back available tools for our armed services from already low points, in a time of war. Meanwhile Russia is agreeing to get rid of nuclear weapons they are unable to maintain. Not a great plan and they are not at war.

[Missileman]

Ok, I'll give you that one-- I should have said "modify and maintain" as we'd peaked our possesion of fissile/fusion warheads in the early sixties. The fact we have enough nukes to blow any enemy to kingdom come remains. Shall we dabble in nuclear arsenal numbers, gross megatonnage of current inventories, their readiness for deployment and deliverability- or will you concede our destructive power is ample.

I don't think it's hypocritical of us to want the rogue nation of Iran to remain non-nuclear. Our force is defensive...Iran's would be offensive.(pun intended)

[logroller]

I'm not going into specifics, rather taking a historical viewpoint.

START as now agreed to will require Russia to rid itself of nuclear weapons it's having a devil of a time maintaining, if doing so at all. US will destroy weapons that are ready to use and also require limited development of new weapons in general.

While the above doesn't sound so bad, there were many issues that were problematic with the treaty, once again:

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/09/twelve-flaws-of-new-start-that-will-be-difficult-to-fix

Only the main points, explanations found at site:

Flaw #1: New START fails to speak to the issue of protecting and defending the U.S. and its allies against strategic attack.

Flaw #2: New START imposes restrictions on U.S. missile defense options.

Flaw #3: The atrophying U.S. nuclear arsenal and weapons enterprise make reductions in the U.S. strategic nuclear arsenal even more dangerous.

Flaw #4: New START counts conventional “prompt global strike” weapons against the numerical limits imposed on nuclear arms.

Flaw #5: The Obama Administration has made New START an essential part of a broader agenda that pursues the goals of nuclear nonprolifera*tion and nuclear disarmament concurrently.

Flaw #6: New START’s limits are uninformed by a targeting policy that is governed by the protect and defend strategy.

Flaw #7: New START leaves in place a large Russian advantage in nonstrategic (tactical) nuclear weapons.

Flaw #8: New START does not appear to limit rail-mobile intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs).

Flaw #9: The BCC’s mandate is overly broad.

Flaw #10: The New START limitations are unclear on whether they would permit the U.S. to counter future threats from a combination of states.

Flaw #11: New START is not adequately verifiable.[13]

Flaw #12: The Obama Administration believes that Russian cheating under New START is only a marginal concern.

While I agree all of these were worth addressing, I bolded the ones I find most problematic. In any case, it no longer matters, it's moot.

I think that watching spending is a wise thing, however we are and have been at war for over a decade now, too bad Congress failed to declare, but that's for another day. Truth is the military has been stretched very thin:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/american-military-already-doing-more-less

Now for the historical lessons on wishing for peace, which in all honesty is what this whole enchilada is about. Yes, the US spends more than the X number countries following, combined. Big problem are those following us are for the most part, our allies. It seems that our diplomatic efforts would be better spent in pressuring them to carry more of the weight.

The last time the world did what is now happening was that rosy period following WWI. The carnage and waste made Europe very leery of future conflicts, for good reasons. Well except for Germany. The failure of Versailles and onset of reparations, followed by the depression made it ripe for Hitler's rising. The rest of Europe had no problem playing ostrich, then appeasers. Neither brought peace. All that happened was Germany managed to build up their defenses that were unmatched by England and France, they only had the leftovers from WWI, not a good show there. Meanwhile Germany had cutting edge air force, army, and submarines. Only the British Navy could sort of hold its own.

If the US had been willing, which in all honesty wasn't our business to do, to stand up to Hitler's rebuilding in early 30's, things may have gone differently. If England and France had done so from a position of strength, a difference may have been made.

We are disarming, cutting back available tools for our armed services from already low points, in a time of war. Meanwhile Russia is agreeing to get rid of nuclear weapons they are unable to maintain. Not a great plan and they are not at war.

Accepting the emboldened points as moot-- I couldn't agree more, but the gravity of global thermonuclear war are beyond comparison to conventional warfare. START ,IMO, has as much to do with peace as nuclear strategic defense has to do with the winning cold war: as mere posturing; but mankind, and his governments, must be compelled to ensure such tools exist solely to enable our will, not dictate it; as has been evidenced in maniacal national endeavors of the past. War, after all, is the antithesis of peace, not its proponent. Will START do everything its hyped to; doubt it, but we shall continue on in peaceful pursuits.

“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; because there is not effort without error and shortcomings; but who does actually strive to do the deed; who knows the great enthusiasm, the great devotion, who spends himself in a worthy cause, who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement and who at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly. So that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.”- Theodore Roosevelt