| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Obama's Prospects for Russia Arms Pact Fade |
| 2010-11-17 |
 WASHINGTON -- An agreement between the United States and Russia to slash their nuclear arsenals was in danger of collapse after an influential Republican senator said Tuesday it should not be voted on this year.With a terse statement, Sen. Jon Kyl dealt a major setback to President Barack Obama's efforts to improve ties with Russia and to his broader strategy for reducing nuclear arms worldwide. The treaty, known as New START, had been seen as one of Obama's top foreign policy accomplishments. |
| Posted by:DarthVader |
| #6 ION WAFF > [StrategyPage] CHINA REPLACES RUSSIA, in Central Asia = former Soviet -STANS. ECONOMIC, SOON ENUFF OER TIME FOR CHINA TO BECOME MILITARY + ULTIMAT POLITICAL??? * TOPIX > DENMARK READY FOR MISSLE SHIELD. and * BHARAT RAKSHAK [YouTube] INDIA WANTS DEEPER MILITARY PACTS WID US. Cooper + Trade/Techs Transfers + Security. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2010-11-17 22:32 |
| #5 What is the relevance of such treaties in a post-cold war world? |
| Posted by: john frum 2010-11-17 19:48 |
| #4 This is typical behavior of the Big O. He goes for the big splash and does not do his homework. He will never realize that he is not the king, and that he needs to work with the Senate beforehand when he is playing around with this treaty stuff. The reality is now if you get rid of your nuclear weapons unilaterally, you will be subject to nuclear blackmail. The Leftist ideology will not work with reality. He is playing games with our security and our lives, and those of our allies. |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2010-11-17 18:00 |
| #3 It was a bad treaty, not to mention completely unnecessary. The president did this to fulfill his youthful dream of creating a nuclear-free America, against advice from both sides of the aisle... and I don't think there was ever really a point when the Senate would have ratified the thing, any more than they were willing to ratify the Kyoto one. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2010-11-17 15:18 |
| #2 "national security ought to be strictly bipartisan" "Ought to" and "Bambi's in charge" are two different things, Steve. Bambi's idea of "bipartisan" is "you have to do things MY way." |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2010-11-17 14:21 |
| #1 I don't get the need for speed here. Sure, when the President signs a treaty, it should go to the Senate without inordinate delay. But the President should have a pretty good idea in advance what the Senate will and will not approve. It appears that Bambi the Infallible once again miscalculated, and didn't get Senator Kyl on board in advance of the final negotiations. One can play hardball on the domestic front if one wants to, but national security ought to be strictly bipartisan. The START treaty negotiations should have been briefed to both Dems and Pubs all along in the Senate so that there wouldn't be such snags after the treaty has been signed. How hard would it have been to brief Kyl and hear his concerns? Now the treaty is going to sit in the lame-duck session without progress (good), and then it will come up in the new session in 2011. It ought to be reviewed then without political rancor, but good luck on that one. The US and Russia could have agreed, at the expiration of the previous START treaty, to keep that one in force, with mutual inspections, until the new treaty was approved. Apparently Bambi couldn't persuade the Russians of that. Makes you wonder what's in this treaty that we won't like when we finally get to read about it (you know, after it's approved). |
| Posted by: Steve White 2010-11-17 11:37 |