Abject Surrender In Dead Of Night

[777 fixer]

I felt an earthquake here.......Dude we are in agreement.

That must mean your a leftist.

 

[777 fixer]

Ask Peloisi and Harry.

If you were watching the news this week you would know Nancy Pelosi is no longer speaker and the democrats are no longer in charge of the House. Which means the purse strings are controlled by the GOP.

Over the years a big problem the DOD has had is when they try and cut or even kill a program Congress steps in and spends money on those programs anyway. This has happened under both the democrats and the GOP. The question is whether or not the GOP will have the discipline not to do this.

 

[dapoes]

Duma

Look num nuts. The DUMA can interpret it any way they would like. So can we. We do not need to agree to their interpretation and neither do they. Should there be a disagreement, it will have to be clarified via negotiation. The people listed above are military officials who say the treaty is solid. So far all you have is hot air which is what you usually bring to the table.

Yet another insult when backed into a corner. Seems to be a regular habit of yours. Obviously this another attempt to comment on a situation/outcome that you have no idea whats happening in real time. Just like to hear yourself squawk.

 

[dapoes]

If you were watching the news this week you would know Nancy Pelosi is no longer speaker and the democrats are no longer in charge of the House. Which means the purse strings are controlled by the GOP.

Not quite, theres still a dem controlled senate and dem president with veto power.

So how does one have "purse strings" with only 1/3 control? :blink:

 

[777 fixer]

Not quite, theres still a dem controlled senate and dem president with veto power.

So how does one have "purse strings" with only 1/3 control? :blink:

Congress appripriates money do they not? We have seen over the years the DOD try to either cut or even kill a program only to have the House bring it back to life. There are numerous examples of this.

Take the V-22. Back when Dick Cheney was Sec Of Defense he tried to kill the program. However Congress steped in and funded the program anyway. Another example is the C-17. The Bush Administration tried to end production only to have Congress apprporiate money anyway.

 

[Ms Tree]

Yet another insult when backed into a corner. Seems to be a regular habit of yours. Obviously this another attempt to comment on a situation/outcome that you have no idea whats happening in real time. Just like to hear yourself squawk.

You insult me in nearly every response you make and when I decided to respond in kind you say something? That's rich. Yet you still failed to address the issue.

The Duma may interpret the treaty any way they choose to do so. The US may do the same. If the interpretations do not coincide, the US and Russia may renegotiate, clarify or scrap it and start from scratch. Neither country may impose it's interpretation on the other and there is no third party to enforce the treaty. Each country enforces the treaty on the other through voluntary compliance and inspection. Unless Obama and Congress agree with what the Duma says, it is a moot issue.

 

[dapoes]

You insult me in nearly every response you make and when I decided to respond in kind you say something? That's rich. Yet you still failed to address the issue.

The Duma may interpret the treaty any way they choose to do so. The US may do the same. If the interpretations do not coincide, the US and Russia may renegotiate, clarify or scrap it and start from scratch. Neither country may impose it's interpretation on the other and there is no third party to enforce the treaty. Each country enforces the treaty on the other through voluntary compliance and inspection. Unless Obama and Congress agree with what the Duma says, it is a moot issue.

Still yet clueless on recent events or just cya?

Heres a breakdown of what transpired since your asleep at the mouse again.

1) Russia insisted on inserting missile defense provisions into the preamble, making it obvious that they viewed this provision as having some importance.
2) The White House has stated that it is non-binding and to further complicate matters, the administration denied the Senate the opportunity to understand the dispute better, by refusing to share treaty negotiating documents.
3) Now that the Senate has approved the treaty without first understanding how it would be implemented, the Russian Duma will attempt to modify the accord to impose missile defense restrictions just as critics of the accord predicted would happen.
and the doosy of them all....
4) The White House has been publicly caught arguing one thing to the Senate while apparently agreeing to its opposite with Russia.

The START Treaty ratification process turned into a full blown mess between USA and Russia. And it is a mess because the Obama administration was not candid about the meaning of the agreement. If the Duma alters the accord in an attempt to impose new restrictions on America’s defensive capabilities, the Obama administration will have a full-blown diplomatic incident on its hands.

Any alteration to the treaty (by the DUMA) will force a new ratification vote, and clearly Obama would have lacked the signatures in the last session of Congress for missile-defense restrictions. With his 18-seat majority reduced to six seats, the new session of the Senate won’t approve it either, and it won’t even be close. If the Duma follows through on this threat, then Obama will suffer an embarrassing defeat on foreign policy, essentially conducting a rerun on more substantial grounds of the “reset button” embarrassment from two years ago.

Even if the Duma doesn’t formally alter the treaty, though, Obama’s credibility will be shot. They will have been publicly caught arguing one thing to the Senate while apparently agreeing to its opposite with Russia. The next time Obama brings a treaty of any consequence and controversy to the Senate, don’t expect the Senate to just accept Obama’s word and don’t expect it to pass ratification either.

 

[Ms Tree]

Still yet clueless on recent events or just cya?

Heres a breakdown of what transpired since your asleep at the mouse again.

1) Russia insisted on inserting missile defense provisions into the preamble, making it obvious that they viewed this provision as having some importance.
2) The White House has stated that it is non-binding and to further complicate matters, the administration denied the Senate the opportunity to understand the dispute better, by refusing to share treaty negotiating documents.
3) Now that the Senate has approved the treaty without first understanding how it would be implemented, the Russian Duma will attempt to modify the accord to impose missile defense restrictions just as critics of the accord predicted would happen.
and the doosy of them all....
4) The White House has been publicly caught arguing one thing to the Senate while apparently agreeing to its opposite with Russia.

The START Treaty ratification process turned into a full blown mess between USA and Russia. And it is a mess because the Obama administration was not candid about the meaning of the agreement. If the Duma alters the accord in an attempt to impose new restrictions on America’s defensive capabilities, the Obama administration will have a full-blown diplomatic incident on its hands.

Any alteration to the treaty (by the DUMA) will force a new ratification vote, and clearly Obama would have lacked the signatures in the last session of Congress for missile-defense restrictions. With his 18-seat majority reduced to six seats, the new session of the Senate won’t approve it either, and it won’t even be close. If the Duma follows through on this threat, then Obama will suffer an embarrassing defeat on foreign policy, essentially conducting a rerun on more substantial grounds of the “reset button” embarrassment from two years ago.

Even if the Duma doesn’t formally alter the treaty, though, Obama’s credibility will be shot. They will have been publicly caught arguing one thing to the Senate while apparently agreeing to its opposite with Russia. The next time Obama brings a treaty of any consequence and controversy to the Senate, don’t expect the Senate to just accept Obama’s word and don’t expect it to pass ratification either.

I am not sure if you are trying to sound smarter than you are or simply ignorant of the concept of plagiarism or just not willing to reveal the sources of your cut and paste. What ever the reason your lack of links is quite irritating.

For those interested, here is the link for the above cut and paste that was not credited.

The Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation disagrees with the above link. The cite that the preamble is non-binding and that strategic and defensive weapons have been linked before. Bush said “[A]s the President [Putin] said, that we’re going to have open and honest dialogue about defensive systems, as well as reduction of offensive systems. The two go hand-in-hand in order to set up a new strategic framework for peace.”.

Also stated i the preamble:

“that current strategic defensive arms do not undermine the viability and effectiveness of the strategic offensive arms of the Parties.”

Missile Defense Agency Director Lt. Gen. Patrick O’Reilly testified: “I do not see any limitation on my ability to develop missile defenses.” He added: “from a technical basis…I would say that either one of those approaches of replacing ICBMs with ground-based interceptors or adapting the submarine-launched ballistic missiles to be an interceptor, would actually be a setback—a major setback—to the development of our missile defenses.” In agreeing to this provision, the U.S. ensured that Russian inspectors will not be able to inspect U.S. missile defense sites to verify that they aren't being converted to launch nuclear arms and vice versa.

Center for Arms control

Given that your link does not have a single US source and provides no evidence and has an obvious bias I really do not think there is much credibility there. On top of that to assume that the people I cited in a post above who all have extensive military back grounds do not know what they are talking about is quite insulting to them.

You have yet to provide any evidence that the treaty is not as advertised and that the WH has been caught in anything.

 

[dapoes]

I am not sure if you are trying to sound smarter than you are or simply ignorant of the concept of plagiarism or just not willing to reveal the sources of your cut and paste. What ever the reason your lack of links is quite irritating.

For those interested, here is the link for the above cut and paste that was not credited.

The Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation disagrees with the above link. The cite that the preamble is non-binding and that strategic and defensive weapons have been linked before. Bush said “[A]s the President [Putin] said, that we’re going to have open and honest dialogue about defensive systems, as well as reduction of offensive systems. The two go hand-in-hand in order to set up a new strategic framework for peace.”.

Also stated i the preamble:


Center for Arms control

Given that your link does not have a single US source and provides no evidence and has an obvious bias I really do not think there is much credibility there. On top of that to assume that the people I cited in a post above who all have extensive military back grounds do not know what they are talking about is quite insulting to them.

You have yet to provide any evidence that the treaty is not as advertised and that the WH has been caught in anything.

Still in a fog it appears, btw I provided the information initially as posted here: http://airlineforums.com/topic/47002-abject-surrender-in-dead-of-night/page__view__findpost__p__775723

However your constant CYA, blather prohibits you from admitting you are ignorant of the subject at hand and what is currently at issue.

Again this has nothing to do with what peoples military backgrounds, the argument is not about that. If you were paying any attention whatsoever you would be aware of the bait and switch tactics that the White House did and how Obama credibility is now shot.

4) The White House has been publicly caught arguing one thing to the Senate while apparently agreeing to its opposite with Russia.​

Why is that so hard to understand? :blink:

 

[Ms Tree]

Simply because it is not true. The preamble is not binding and has nothing to do with the substance of the treaty.

 

[dapoes]

Simply because it is not true. The preamble is not binding and has nothing to do with the substance of the treaty.

It is true. Once again Russia insisted on inserting missile defense provisions into the preamble (Obama appeased), making it obvious that they viewed this provision as having some importance. This was brought up early on by the opposition to such treaty. Remember????

However....the administration denied the Senate the opportunity to understand the dispute better, by refusing to share treaty negotiating documents.

You really aren't up to speed with RECENT EVENTS on this.

 

[Ms Tree]

The preamble is not binding.

 

[dapoes]

The preamble is not binding.

I can see you are really having comprehension troubles with this so we will just move on.

So what do you think will happen next?
Do you think the DUMA will ratify as is (hint:they wont)?
And if they dont, whats next?
What will happen when the Duma will do what Senate Republicans wanted, which was to amend the treaty to clarify the relationship between START and missile defense? However, the Duma’s changes will link the two and recast START into a de facto anti-missile defense pact, just as was predicted early on.

 

[Ms Tree]

Can you read palms and tea leaves too?

 

[dapoes]

Can you read palms and tea leaves too?

Maybe its more like an "I told you so" moment. You see, this is what happens when you rush thru major defense legislation under a lame duck congress. But i already told you that.

Heres what will happen. The DUMA will modify by making amendments directly linking strategic offensive and defensive weapons as they wanted and initially insisted in the preamble they inserted.

It will then get sent back to the current congress. And guess how that will go over?

If they don't get that then they have already stated they will drop it all together and OBAMA's credibility is in the toilet with RUSSIA.

Remember that ever important reset with RUSSIA? Kiss it buh bye!