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

Skip to comments.

The Republican case for ratifying New START
WaPo ^ | 12/2/2010 | Henry A. Kissinger, George P. Shultz, James A. Baker III, Lawrence S. Eagleburger & Colin L. Powell

Posted on 12/02/2010 11:21:07 AM PST by mojito

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-39 last
Image and video hosting by TinyPic
21 posted on 12/02/2010 12:08:37 PM PST by ETL (ALL (most?) of the Obama-commie connections at my FR Home page: http://www.freerepublic.com/~etl/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Quix; Whenifhow; houeto; null and void; Squantos; xrmusn; bronxville; Screaming_Gerbil; ...
Peace-through-surrender ping.

(thanks mojito)

"Nuclear Terror" ping.

Ping list covering atomic/nuclear/thermonuclear terrifying events and discussions.

FReepmail me if vou want on or off The Comedian's "Nuclear Terror" ping list...


Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.

22 posted on 12/02/2010 12:11:33 PM PST by The Comedian (Government: Saving people from freedom since time immemorial.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: mojito

Not only does the new treaty wipe out a 1/3 of our nuclear missile force. It also takes out 1/2 our bombers and 1/2 our Submarines. Oh and the best part is the Russia can opt out and we cannot.

This is not just a no but a hell no!


23 posted on 12/02/2010 12:19:00 PM PST by Sprite518
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mojito

You want to make your case for START? Wait for after the lame duck session.


24 posted on 12/02/2010 12:20:05 PM PST by ari-freedom (Happy Chanuka!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mojito

Soros lapdogs, one and all.


25 posted on 12/02/2010 12:29:15 PM PST by weeder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mojito

“Republican presidents have long led the crucial fight to protect the United States against nuclear dangers. That is why Presidents Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush negotiated the SALT I, START I and START II agreements”

Arms agreements do not in any way, shape, or form protect anyone against nuclear dangers.


26 posted on 12/02/2010 12:30:34 PM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tallguy

“Negotiating a START treaty with Russia will only make us incrementally safer from nuclear war as both sides are pretty unlikely to use them”

If both sides are unlikely to use them, what the heck is the point of the treaty in the first place? That’s the problem with arms agreements. If they work, they were unecessary. If they don’t, all they do is reward agressors.


27 posted on 12/02/2010 12:33:54 PM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: mojito

Man thats a lot of RINO Chicken crappers sitting on one roost


28 posted on 12/02/2010 12:36:50 PM PST by Venturer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mojito

“The article is a good antidote to the Kissinger et al piece.”

Why anyone should listen to Kissinger is beyond me. His entire rationale was that the USSR was no more evil, no more an agressor, no more a “destablizer” (or however they put it), than the U.S. His false idol was the “balance of power” of the post-Napoleonic era. If he could go back that far, it’s kinda ironic he didn’t go just a little further to realize what worked after Napoleon wouldn’t have meant anything to Napoleon (or Hitler, or Stalin, etc.)


29 posted on 12/02/2010 12:39:33 PM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: mojito

These are a bunch of have been, whose mindset are still the same as it was in 1960s-1980s, when Russian was a threat. Yes, I know that Powell’s name is there, but he’s 0bama lover in the first place, so it doesn’t count.


30 posted on 12/02/2010 12:44:44 PM PST by paudio (The differences between Clinton and 0bama? About a dozen of former Democratic Congressmen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mojito

The idea that the United States’ action in reducing its nuclear arsenal promotes peace is illogical. It makes no sense. How does making yourself weaker promote peace? Has any of these START treaties made the world safer? Has it prevented the spread of nuclear weapons? North Korea and Iran are developing nuclear weapons and delivery systems as we speak. How is START going to affect these countries? I can see nothing too coming from START.


31 posted on 12/02/2010 12:49:42 PM PST by Nosterrex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Comedian

As in

PEACE THROUGH SUICIDE

as a gift to one’s enemies ping.


32 posted on 12/02/2010 12:51:23 PM PST by Quix (Times are a changin' INSURE you have believed in your heart & confessed Jesus as Lord Come NtheFlesh)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: mojito

The RINOs calling for handcuffing America with a flawed treaty in a dangerous world.

HELL, NO!


33 posted on 12/02/2010 1:06:06 PM PST by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mojito

Their opinion doesn’t add up to a cup of warm spit. They are all obsolete.


34 posted on 12/02/2010 2:38:38 PM PST by DarthVader (That which supports Barack Hussein Obama must be sterilized and there are NO exceptions!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HerrBlucher
Yeah what a lineup of globalist rinos.

Yep...exactly right. They are not "GOP"...nor are they patriotic Americans...they are elitist Globalists...all big-time Council of Foreign Relations saboteurs of our national sovereignty.

Phyllis Schlafly made sure that Ronald Reagan kept his promise...and never once gave Kissinger ANY role in his government. And his foreign policy success was dramatic as a result. Too bad he had James Baker in the White House unfortunately. As we all know, he was one of the ones who helped make the whole Iran-Contra story accusations against Reagan so much bigger than it really was. The Bush's were hoping it would work...and they got their RINO buddy Howard Baker to 'help' Reagan as Chief of Staff. Fortunately, Howard didn't follow through with the Bush plan.

35 posted on 12/02/2010 4:51:35 PM PST by Paul Ross (Ronald Reagan-1987:"We are always willing to be trade partners but never trade patsies.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: First Authority
The MX were a counterforce weapon, not first strike, albeit they had the ability to be if...we had 3 X more of them. The MX gave us the ability to retaliate against their arsenal...after they struck first...and gave us the option of not having to nuke their cities. And by taking out their remaining missiles...that would keep them from thinking they could win. And their existence helped us prevent their attack, and thus caused their ultimate collapse as their nuclear war winning doctrine imploded.

Today, however, the clock is being wound back to before Reagan...to our extreme danger. The Russians for example, are busy deploying an equivalent mobile missile system to the MX...the Topol-M.... while we are dismantling systems...they are deploying.... H'mmm.

36 posted on 12/02/2010 4:56:50 PM PST by Paul Ross (Ronald Reagan-1987:"We are always willing to be trade partners but never trade patsies.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: mojito

Henry A. Kissinger, George P. Shultz, James A. Baker III, Lawrence S. Eagleburger & Colin L. Powell

What a collection of pathetic losers. Living (in some cases barely breathing) memorials to the failed promise of the Republican Party to the silent majority of American Patriots across the land.


37 posted on 12/03/2010 4:47:04 AM PST by samtheman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #38 Removed by Moderator

To: First Authority
The cities were always a simple target, soft and immobile. 'Sitting ducks'. The counterforce ability required not just power and accuracy, but 'immediacy' and the ability to be coordinated in a very facile way to not just hit already-emptied SS-18 silos...but the remaining ones the enemy would use for their 2nd and 3rd strikes. Hence, Operation Looking Glass capabilities was paramount. Gave the whole force a brain. And one that could survive a first strike. This was critical to countering the nuclear war winning strategy of the Soviets. And it worked.

Unfortunately, we have nothing like that running at high preparedness levels right now...despite clear and present evidence of mounting nuclear threats.

39 posted on 12/06/2010 7:06:25 AM PST by Paul Ross (Ronald Reagan-1987:"We are always willing to be trade partners but never trade patsies.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-39 last

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

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

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