Corvette Forum : DigitalCorvettes.com Corvette Forums banner

1 - 20 of 61 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
170 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
http://www.business-standard.com/in...s-republican-votes-for-nuclear-pact/119887/on

PRESIDENT Obama secures those Republican votes needed for the NUCLEAR PACK.

Eleven Senate Republicans joined Democrats in a 67-28 proxy vote yesterday to wind up the debate and hold a final tally on Wednesday. They broke ranks with the Senate's top two Republicans and were poised to give Obama a victory on his top foreign policy priority.



"We are on the brink of writing the next chapter in the 40-year history of wrestling with the threat of nuclear
weapons," Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry, a Democrat, said after the vote.
__________________________________________________





I always respected Kerry for speaking out on IRAN CONTRA

(KERRY and OBAMA 2012) :D
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
31,366 Posts
Too bad those idiots are too dumb to notice that Russia is building more bunkers now, that at any time during the cold war. And if they could get their heads out of their ass for a few seconds, they might also realize that the US is about the only country in the world interested in reducing their nuclear arsenal.

Obama/Kerry 2012, sounds like a decent enough year to deport them both.. :thumbsup:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
170 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
Too bad those idiots are too dumb to notice that Russia is building more bunkers now, that at any time during the cold war. And if they could get their heads out of their ass for a few seconds, they might also realize that the US is about the only country in the world interested in reducing their nuclear arsenal.

Obama/Kerry 2012, sounds like a decent enough year to deport them both.. :thumbsup:

Well, I guess were doomed then:nuts:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,457 Posts
I just dont understand what they think this is going to accomplish.

I mean say we didnt have any nukes. We would be on the other side begging borrowing and stealing to get some.
Since we have so many we now think we need none? What purpose will that serve.

Just what are we going to gain? I see nothing but negative by taking all of ours away.

It is undeniable that no country (including our own government) can be trusted. Hell I just dont get where people think this is a good idea especially considering the fact that pretty much no one likes us.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
170 Posts
Discussion Starter #6 (Edited)
I just dont understand what they think this is going to accomplish.

I mean say we didnt have any nukes. We would be on the other side begging borrowing and stealing to get some.
Since we have so many we now think we need none? What purpose will that serve.

Just what are we going to gain? I see nothing but negative by taking all of ours away.

It is undeniable that no country (including our own government) can be trusted. Hell I just dont get where people think this is a good idea especially considering the fact that pretty much no one likes us.
" The treaty will leave the United States "with enough nuclear warheads to blow any attacker to kingdom come," Alexander said on the Senate floor, adding, "I'm convinced that Americans are safer and more secure with the New START treaty than without it."

Four other Republican senators said they would back the pact

http://www.business-standard.com/ind...pact/119887/on

OBAMA/KERRY 2012
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
170 Posts
Discussion Starter #7 (Edited)
Also, and I quote...............................


" Obama has insisted that the treaty is a national security imperative that will improve cooperation with Russia, an argument loudly echoed by the nation's military and foreign policy leaders, former Presidents George H W Bush and Bill Clinton and six Republican secretaries of state. "

BUSINESS STANDARD
http://www.business-standard.com/ind...pact/119887/on


OBAMA/KERRY 2012
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
170 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
I just dont understand what they think this is going to accomplish.

I mean say we didnt have any nukes. We would be on the other side begging borrowing and stealing to get some.
Since we have so many we now think we need none? What purpose will that serve.

Just what are we going to gain? I see nothing but negative by taking all of ours away.

It is undeniable that no country (including our own government) can be trusted. Hell I just dont get where people think this is a good idea especially considering the fact that pretty much no one likes us.

MOST of this is true:huh:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
170 Posts
Discussion Starter #9 (Edited)
Hell, besides we need this treaty with Russia.

Those Russians were known for selling old war stuff like subs and all types of other sh*t.

When they get low on cash/ they will sell it. (and yall know it.)

the russians are damn near untrustable

Plus everybody would be sorry if those (Grey Goose) drinking Russians start selling WMD's to that (tall mountian walker.)

On top of that, those mountian walkers and the Russians have quite a history, If I May Say So My Self.

Even though they hate each other
--It could be one of those my enemy's-enemy is my friend.

The Russians fear those Afagans (dont forget)

The USSR went over drunk and left even drunker! (they left most of their guns) lol

OBAMA save us all.:D

KERRY/OBAMA 2012


:rolling:
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
7,823 Posts
looks like we gotta obama fan boy here lol....

Ahh yes, you state we do not need any nukes, but apparently you know nothing of which you speak. Ever hear of MAD? Still applies today, maybe moreso than ever....

You say obama will save us all....what exactly has he saved us from so far?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,410 Posts
How exactly will Obama save us all when Iran and Argentina are pairing up to finish the missle bases they are now building in Argentina, outfitting them with Iranian mid range missles, capable of hitting almost anywhere on the US Gulf coast?

A big part of the treaty is to limit our defensive capabilitry. If we try to shore up our defenses against a plausible threat from Argentina, Russia can use that to fail the treaty. So, if Chavez through Iran's insistence lobs a Russian nuke tipped missle into Texas, what would Obama do? Since when have Argentina, Iran, and Russia acted in 'good faith'?

Would we have the defensive capability to keep those missles from getting to the target? If they do get to the target, would Obama be willing to press the button and send some nukes into Argentina?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
31,366 Posts
Obama's definition of national security and mine is very different.. with him, the US people are the threat.. with me, other countries are a threat.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
170 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
Obama's definition of national security and mine is very different.. with him, the US people are the threat.. with me, other countries are a threat.

THAT SOUNDS LIKE BUSH'S NATIONAL SECURITY DEFININTION.

WHERE WERE YA'LL AT WHEN MR. BUSH WAS (STEALING OR BORROWING) YOUR RIGHTS AWAY.

THANKS TO BUSH----THERE READING THIS RIGHT NOW

(BUSH IS THE ONE WHO THINKS THE U.S. PEOPLE ARE THE THREAT)

OBAMA IS JUST DOING WHAT BUSH DID--EXCEPT A LITTLE BIT BETTER with a...........(with a touch of class)

:laughing:

OBAMA/KERRY 2012
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,457 Posts
So this whole deal is about improving cooperation with Russia. Who in your words are damn near untrustable. The same Russia that has a track record of not being honest.

How many hours and how many dollars are we spending to just do these negotiations? How much money will it cost us to implement our part if a deal is reached? And in the end " The treaty will leave the United States "with enough nuclear warheads to blow any attacker to kingdom come,". So whats the point again? Oh there is nothing basically that changes. We both still have lots a nukes and it doesnt even stop us from making more.

To me this is more BS wasting the Americans money dragging their feet addressing real issues playing the people of this country. This whole deal is like a crap shot at best that we may gain cooperation! Ha! Why not use the money and time to take care of some of our issues here like the Illegals or the starving Americans or any other number of real issues facing us.

Surely you wouldn't believe Russia wouldn't still sell their stuff off when they see us selling **** left and right... Or do you consider Russia to have a iq of 2?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
31,366 Posts
THAT SOUNDS LIKE BUSH'S NATIONAL SECURITY DEFININTION.
No, the neocons figure that if they blow everyone the hell up, and make a 150% return on their investment at the same time, we are safe. :laughing:

WHERE WERE YA'LL AT WHEN MR. BUSH WAS (STEALING OR BORROWING) YOUR RIGHTS AWAY.

THANKS TO BUSH----THERE READING THIS RIGHT NOW

(BUSH IS THE ONE WHO THINKS THE U.S. PEOPLE ARE THE THREAT)

OBAMA IS JUST DOING WHAT BUSH DID--EXCEPT A LITTLE BIT BETTER with a...........(with a touch of class)

:laughing:

OBAMA/KERRY 2012
It don't really matter who is in charge of the statist party.. meet the new boss, same as the old boss.. rep/dem makes no difference on the national level, they both work against the best interest of the country.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
170 Posts
Discussion Starter #16 (Edited)
So this whole deal is about improving cooperation with Russia. Who in your words are damn near untrustable. The same Russia that has a track record of not being honest.
______________________________________________

LIKE I SAID, DAMN NEAR UNTRUSTABLE

(NOW IF I SAID, " I damn near wrecked my car." Does that mean I wrecked it.

There hasn't been 1 president (since JFK) who gave a flying **** about homeless hungry Americans, so why knock Obama

KERRY/OBAMA 2012



_________________________________________________-
Altered;1838750! Why not use the money and time to take care of some of our issues here like the Illegals or the starving Americans or any other number of real issues facing us. [B said:
HOW COME THE PRESIDENTS BEFORE HIM DIDN'T FIX THIS ****[/B]

(THAT MEANS THE PREIDENTS BEFORE HIM FAILED ON THOSE SAME ISSUES)

OBAMA/KERRY 2012
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25,253 Posts
How exactly will Obama save us all when Iran and Argentina are pairing up to finish the missle bases they are now building in Argentina, outfitting them with Iranian mid range missles, capable of hitting almost anywhere on the US Gulf coast?

A big part of the treaty is to limit our defensive capabilitry. If we try to shore up our defenses against a plausible threat from Argentina, Russia can use that to fail the treaty. So, if Chavez through Iran's insistence lobs a Russian nuke tipped missle into Texas, what would Obama do? Since when have Argentina, Iran, and Russia acted in 'good faith'?

Would we have the defensive capability to keep those missles from getting to the target? If they do get to the target, would Obama be willing to press the button and send some nukes into Argentina?
The answer to that question is simple. Make it clear that any effort to install missiles in Argentina will result in immediate destruction of the sites. The biggest problem with START is that the two sides apparently interpret the preamble differently. Russia says it prohibits missile defense systems and Obama says it doesn't. That should have been completely cleared up before signing on. This is strictly Obama looking for a feather in his cap before more Republicans get to D.C. and make it more difficult for him to pass his leftist agenda.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
170 Posts
Discussion Starter #19
TELL ME WHO IS GOING TO FIX IT THEN?

damn sure not p***y pink Palin, Lush Limbaugh, corvette Mccain, or any other person on that side :crazy:
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
31,366 Posts
TELL ME WHO IS GOING TO FIX IT THEN?

damn sure not p***y pink Palin, Lush Limbaugh, corvette Mccain, or any other person on that side :crazy:
So far, the only qualified person to be president of a Republic in the last 20+ years is Ron Paul.

Now for the bad news.. it can't be fixed.
 
1 - 20 of 61 Posts
Top