Tuesday, November 30, 2010

Start Treaty

Can someone explain to me why the Republicans are against the Start Treaty. I know that the GOP doesn't want to do anything that might help Obama get something done.  But really, who doesn't want to see fewer nuclear bombs. Is it so important that Obama must fail, that you risk the future of civilization?  Maybe we should promise every Republican a bribe for every bomb taken out of circulation -- seems like money is their only motivator. When I am King, I'll pardon Jack Abramoff  and let him handle the bribes -- he knows how to talk their language.


  1. "I know that the GOP doesn't want to do anything that might help Obama get something done."

    That's it. They will not support Obama on anything, just so he can fail and they can win in 2012. One would think the public would catch on eventually, but it doesn't look like it.

  2. The worst part about this, is that the GOP would rather see nuclear winter than let Obama do something that he wants to do. It's pretty shameful for a political party to do that, if you ask me.

  3. To be honest, they have a fairly crappy semi-legitimate complaint. They see Russia posturing to have the US stop anti-ballistic missile research and production. Some want language in the treaties to specifically exempt anti-ballistics from any missile reduction program.

    I see it as a valid argument, only if you're willing to accept that other states are going to build ballistic nukes, and plan to use them. If that were the case, then perhaps the Rethuglicans might have a valid point.

    Personally, I think that advanced weaponry, smart bombs, and intelligence, coupled with a good diplomatic corps are superior to our anti-ballistic missile program.

    And Mike Brownstein, with any luck the nuclear winter will counter balance the global warming. Other than a few irradiated cities, we'll be sittin' pretty!