Stop Start

We can not allow a treaty to dictate our self-defense. Nor should any treaty which is interpreted differently by the parties to the said treaty ever be ratified. This is only an avenue to distrust and bitterness. This makes the Start Treaty moot. And it's purpose is left in severe doubt and creates not only a weak treaty but one that could create more hostility than cooperation. A treaty regulating the offensive power between two nations can be implemented with mutual agreement. But to even discuss, within the confines of a treaty, the actual self-defense of our Nation is I'll advised and is one which must be left to the internal mechanisms that were created by our Constitution. And absolutely must not be allowed to be controlled or restrained by one of our long time adversaries. This lies outside the realm of our responsible defense. The dictates of the Russians shall direct us in the opposite direction, our best interests and long term prowess are the bane of the Russians. We must never allow the external interference in both our defense preferences and our policy debate directing those policies and preferences that are specifically for the protection of our citizens and our borders and our utter sovereign existence. We today face an existential threat by rogue states: North Korea; Iran; and even Venezuela. This is not to mention those illicit entities to whom these parties would secrete weapons of mass destruction. The current global jihad by Al Qaeda, and surrogates of Hezbollah, and any host of terrorist entities makes the implementation of a defensive missile shield a vital necessity of our sheer existence. Now the proponents including Senator Casey of Pennsylvania, say it doesn't matter what the Preamble of the Start Treaty states and further doesn't care what the interpretation by the Russians is of the PreAmble or any part of the treaty and only cares what our military and what others in our State Department believe the treaty means. If that is the case we need not negotiate any treaty with a potential adversary and some time in the future a potential ally. The single most important purpose of a treaty is to build long lasting cooperation and continued hormonious and peaceful co-existence and all the while eliminating the risk of hostilyy breaking out. And as a matter of fact treaties could never be implemented if a treaty is not interpreted in the identical matter by the two parties. Even carefully worded Treaties although agreed upon at a bargaining table and can come into dispute when a tangible element is presented to the two parties. Words are incorporated into two party agreements because they have significant meaning and ramifications, else there would no purpose of there incorporation. Ambiguity breeds disagreement. Disagreement can escalate to distrust. And distrust can escalate to hostility and finally, hostile actions. What is the soundness of that kind of treaty that incorporates that kind of foreign policy. If the interpretation by the Russians doesn't matter , as senator Casey states, then the treaty and the ratification of it is absolutely Moot. We are being told "don't worry what it says that's not what it means, we will tell you what it means." With the level of disagreement on the meaning of this agreement by friendly parties who only want the protection of our country how can we expect with a potential adversary, namely the Russians any agreement on the interpretation and implementation. We can not ratify such a murky Treaty. We must make it so there is no confusion or misunderstanding regarding it's meaning, implementation and clearly, we can not under any current circumstance allow any prohibitions on the protection by defensive weapons of our sovereignty. The answer is no. Vote against the ratification of the Start Treaty.

You are right Dave; words do have significant meaning and ramifications. I would argue that words are also used to confused and discourage people, (lawyers required).

I have not read the treaty and cannot therefore make an intelligent comment on whether it is good or bad for America. I can say however, that the manner in which it was rushed through the Senate is suspect at best and most likely immoral as it appears that these things happen so quickly because some palm is being greased, or promises made to benefit that particular politician and they (politicians) do not want debate so that they people would be educated and able to speak up on the matter.

I see no other reason to rush this through and these politicians must be held accountable for their actions. There were13 Republicans who helped give Obama an appearance of a great victory which could help him get re-elected. Same goes for the Bush tax cuts, which somehow became the Obama tax cuts. Although another issue, it also gives Obama the appearance of being a moderate centrist and more appealing to the Independents which will elect the next President.

I don’t have time now, but I will publish the names of these Republicans and encourage everyone to use whatever powers they have to find the answers as to why they hurried this through, what did these people get and if it is not good for America, (my suspicion is that it is not), do everything in your power to fire them.

Replies

Ray Marcantoni December 25, 2010 at 4:52pm

You are right Dave; words do have significant meaning and ramifications. I would argue that words are also used to confused and discourage people, (lawyers required).

I have not read the treaty and cannot therefore make an intelligent comment on whether it is good or bad for America. I can say however, that the manner in which it was rushed through the Senate is suspect at best and most likely immoral as it appears that these things happen so quickly because some palm is being greased, or promises made to benefit that particular politician and they (politicians) do not want debate so that they people would be educated and able to speak up on the matter.

I see no other reason to rush this through and these politicians must be held accountable for their actions. There were13 Republicans who helped give Obama an appearance of a great victory which could help him get re-elected. Same goes for the Bush tax cuts, which somehow became the Obama tax cuts. Although another issue, it also gives Obama the appearance of being a moderate centrist and more appealing to the Independents which will elect the next President.

I don’t have time now, but I will publish the names of these Republicans and encourage everyone to use whatever powers they have to find the answers as to why they hurried this through, what did these people get and if it is not good for America, (my suspicion is that it is not), do everything in your power to fire them.

This reply was deleted.

Replies

Note: this page contains paid content.

Note: this page contains paid content.

Note: this page contains paid content.

Note: this page contains paid content.

Note: this page contains paid content.

Note: this page contains paid content.

Note: this page contains paid content.

Note: this page contains paid content.