Posted on 02/02/2019 5:39:36 PM PST by Kaslin
Russia couldn’t destroy the US if they tried. Even if the tried really, really, hard.
Economically, they are pint sized.
You make sense but nuclear Armageddon is not really that expensive.
Explain why we should abide by it, when Russia isn’t.
Because abiding by ALL treaties weakens the US military and the defense contractors, allowing the Russians to pioneer new stuff. All according to the Dem war plan to destroy the US as constructed.
It would require a mad man president on either side
Have you checked out the Democrat Presidential candidate field lately as well as those like AOC waiting stage left?
I understand that. But Putin is trying to scare us into a form of capitulation. And our MIC is lapping it up like soup.
Why and what such ‘capitulation’ looks like?
Why? Because the US blocks all of their attempts at expanding their markets. That’s why they are in Syria, we are trying to block their northern oil pipes, we are trying to keep them out of Turkey, etc.
This isn’t about Ukraine or territories. It’s about economics.
At 23 trillion in debt, it won’t take a whole lot to push us over the edge.
But do you think is it okay for US to use political tools to remove them from markets?
How does it correspond with values on which US was founded?
It is a million dollar question in light of fact that US for decades criticized the Soviet ways on economy and politics go hand in hand and they finally caved on it to the point of adopting another system at great price.
The answer is very important for the purpose of understanding the issues of American influence in the World nowadays.
No, I think we should fight them in the marketplace. But that hasn’t been the US way since the 1950’s.
You are right and you are not the only one who see it.
It’s not about Russia, it’s about China who never signed a treaty and has been developing the missiles. Russia just gave us a good excuse to pull out.
“I bet you’ll say the same thing about the JCPOA too. “
Only a weak mind would make that association.
Attack the man rather than argue the point.
“We should stay in a treaty that Putin flagrantly violated with (unspecified) “minor, technical violations” as Obama might put it? “
I don’t know how you got the idea that I support the INF treaty.
I don’t. Have not since the fall of the Soviets. This treaty has run its course.
But to suggest that it’s failure was solely because Russia deployed a non-nuke missile which just barely exceeds limits is naive.
The US wants out of this treaty for our own reasons, and it has nothing to do with the deployment of nuke IR weapons in Europe. Which neither the US or Russia will do.
Please don’t put words in my mouth. Asking if we ought to stay in a treaty is not the same as my saying you support it. Notwithstanding, claiming “minor, technical violations” on Russia’s part is a defense of a broken treaty, on the part of the party who breached it.
You make a good point about the EU’s faux outrage over the treaty’s end. It is they who want the USA restrained militarily, in spite of their rhetoric when it comes to NATO; they also make themselves look like they’re stuck in the Cold War, which speaks volumes about their own ambitions.
No, I fully support withdraw from the treaty and have for over 20 years.
It has nothing to do with what the Russians have, or have not done.
Thanks for that.
The reason the US wants out of the INF treaty is to counter China in East Asia.
Something I support.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/dropping-weapons-treaty-let-us-nuclear-arsenal-051525222.html
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.