BMW M3 Forum (E90 E92)

BMW Garage BMW Meets Register Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read


Go Back   M3Post - BMW M3 Forum > BIMMERPOST Universal Forums > Off-Topic Discussions Board > Politics/Religion
 
Redline360
Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      05-29-2014, 12:35 AM   #89
Soorena
Captain
No_Country
49
Rep
852
Posts

Drives: M3 6MT
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Paris

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patronus86 View Post
So the 10+ years of embargos and economic sanctions imposed on Iraq in the wake of the 1st Gulf War didn't count as "sanctions." I know I'm digging up an old post, but really?

I guess you forgot about those sanctions and the fact that Iraq had to exchange oil for food and medicine because of how rigorous said sanctions were.
Sanctions against the invader. Not against the country that was invaded.
Appreciate 0
      05-29-2014, 10:13 AM   #90
Patronus86
Banned
-55
Rep
269
Posts

Drives: 2013 335is
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Upstate NY

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2013 335is  [0.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soorena View Post
Sanctions against the invader. Not against the country that was invaded.
By the invader I'm guessing you mean the US, UK and others of the coalition.

Well if you really feel that way, you should first be demanding that the UN revoke resolution 1441, which gave Saddam one final chance to comply with weapons inspectors, and resolution 1483, which recognized the occupation of Iraq as legal in the eyes of the international law.

Then you might have a valid case to make for sanctions against the US.
Appreciate 0
      05-29-2014, 11:10 AM   #91
128Convertibleguy
Captain
39
Rep
703
Posts

Drives: 2010 128 Covertible
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Mountains

iTrader: (0)

Smile

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patronus86 View Post
We've been doing inspections for 3+ years...that is your proof that Russia has in fact honoring the new Start treaty? UN inspectors spent 10 years trying to determine Saddam Hussein's WMD capabilities and were unable to prove his threat potential, or lack thereof. What did those inspections end up proving?

1) What about the possibility, and I know I'm going out on a limb here, of Russia hiding certain nuclear weapons or misleading inspectors? I know it's far fetched, especially for someone naive like you. There is no chance that they are doing that?
I've addressed precisely those issues. For the third, and final time.

""The New START Treaty provides for 18 on-site inspections per year."

Which we've been doing for 3+ years now. (not international inspectors, us personally) 60 inspections in all, so far. No doubt you think the inspections consisted of our guys sitting down in a Moscow restaurant, drinking vodka with their Russian counterparts, and chatting. I don't. I'll leave it to you to find and read the reports.

I know. They're building more secretly. And Saddam really had weapons of mass destruction. The whole thing is a vast conspiracy.

Proof?"

Here's the thing. For most anyone the fact that we do 18 onsite inspections a year would be proof. The verification procedures are better than the ones Reagan, not unconcerned with the issue, put in place. I could also point out Russia made no secret of their building intermediate range cruise missiles, in violation of the 1987 treaty. The missiles represent no threat to us. Or, really, our allies. Unless you think Putin, emboldened by Ukraine, would launch them against a NATO country. Maybe Germany?

But you hate Obama so much you cannot admit to the fact that the START treaty represents a real foreign policy accomplishment, something the previous two Presidents tried hard on and failed to achieve.

This is like dealing with a "birther". It mattered not how much evidence was presented, no matter how many court decisions went against them (I believe one birther and their lawyer were sanctioned by the court for wasting the court's time, since the issue had already been adjudicated several times). It became clear that nothing at all would convince them. So it is here.

Last edited by 128Convertibleguy; 05-29-2014 at 11:37 AM.
Appreciate 0
      05-29-2014, 11:23 AM   #92
128Convertibleguy
Captain
39
Rep
703
Posts

Drives: 2010 128 Covertible
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Mountains

iTrader: (0)

Smile

Quote:
Originally Posted by Soorena View Post
Sanctions against the invader. Not against the country that was invaded.
Sanctions might indeed have been justified, since we invaded another country on a premise equally flimsy to the ones Putin used. But it would be adding insult to injury. We've paid a price for this folly far beyond what any sanctions could achieve.

Over 4000 brave Americans killed. Tens of thousands wounded. Tens of thousands of families devastated. A trillion (with a T) dollars.

All to achieve nothing with regard to American security. Nothing. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Present day Iraq is not really an ally, or our enemy, any more than Saddam was. It didn't even cause anyone to "respect our strength". Our allies didn't think we were strong, they thought (rightly) that we were idiots. A few incredibly loyal allies initially went along with us, but their citizens didn't support that, and they eventually left. Enemies like Iran and Syria didn't think we were strong, they thought (rightly) we had so weakened ourselves, and the war willingness of our people, that they now had opportunity to do whatever they wanted. Especially Iran, since we had conveniently removed the biggest enemy they had in the world. When we invaded Iraq, they broke out the champagne in Tehran.

By far, the biggest foreign policy blunder in American history, by any standard.

Last edited by 128Convertibleguy; 05-29-2014 at 11:53 AM.
Appreciate 0
      05-29-2014, 11:51 AM   #93
Soorena
Captain
No_Country
49
Rep
852
Posts

Drives: M3 6MT
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Paris

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
Quote:
Originally Posted by 128Convertibleguy View Post
Sanctions might indeed have been justified, since we invaded another country on a premise equally flimsy to the ones Putin used. But it would be adding insult to injury. We've paid a price for this folly far beyond what any sanctions could achieve.

Over 4000 brave Americans killed. Tens of thousands wounded. Tens of thousands of families devastated. A trillion (with a T) dollars.

All to achieve nothing with regard to American security. Nothing. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Present day Iraq is not really an ally, or our enemy, any more than Saddam was. It didn't even cause anyone to "respect our strength". Our allies didn't think we were strong, they thought (rightly) that we were idiots. Enemies like Iran and Syria didn't think we were strong, they thought (rightly) we had so weakened ourselves, and the war willingness of our people, that they now had opportunity to do whatever they wanted. Especially Iran, since we had conveniently removed the biggest enemy they had in the world. When we invaded Iraq, they broke out the champagne in Tehran.

By far, the biggest foreign policy blunder in American history, by any standard.
I'm not saying they should have sanctioned US. I'm just saying how different the approaches are against these two similar stories.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patronus86 View Post
By the invader I'm guessing you mean the US, UK and others of the coalition.

Well if you really feel that way, you should first be demanding that the UN revoke resolution 1441, which gave Saddam one final chance to comply with weapons inspectors, and resolution 1483, which recognized the occupation of Iraq as legal in the eyes of the international law.

Then you might have a valid case to make for sanctions against the US.
Who cares what UN says? UN is a place where old men come together and do what the man says.
I'm not justifying Putin's act nor i'm questioning invading Iraq. Just saying these two situations are very similar yet the two got very different feedback.
Appreciate 0
      05-29-2014, 01:55 PM   #94
Patronus86
Banned
-55
Rep
269
Posts

Drives: 2013 335is
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Upstate NY

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2013 335is  [0.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by 128Convertibleguy View Post

Here's the thing. For most anyone the fact that we do 18 onsite inspections a year would be proof. The verification procedures are better than the ones Reagan, not unconcerned with the issue, put in place.
How so? Do you care to address the fact that it is now harder for inspectors to verify reductions in Sub-launched and mobile-launched ballistic missiles. This stands in marked contrast to the previous START treaty (which was spearheaded by Reagan, though put into effect under Bush Sr.).

Or what about the fact that the Obama administration acknowledged the Russia could in fact cheat the inspections. Both issues were brought up in:

http://www.heritage.org/research/rep...fficult-to-fix

Quote:
Originally Posted by 128Convertibleguy View Post
I could also point out Russia made no secret of their building intermediate range cruise missiles, in violation of the 1987 treaty. The missiles represent no threat to us. Or, really, our allies. Unless you think Putin, emboldened by Ukraine, would launch them against a NATO country. Maybe Germany?
It doesn't matter that Russia didn't try to hide their violations of the INF treaty. They are still in violation. The missiles do represent a significant threat to US forces stationed abroad (modern cruise missiles are much harder to shoot down than ICBM's), to our homeland (submarine-launched missiles), and are especially dangerous to all of our European allies (most of whom lack significant missile defense systems). If they weren't as effective as regular ICBM's, why else would Russia be utilizing them?

You always assume the worst in my arguments. I believe that it is highly unlikely that Putin will launch nukes at anyone, for the same reason Stalin didn't: mutually assured destruction. That being said, it is more than pointless for us to put effort and commitment into the new START treaty when Russia is still growing its intermediate-range and cruise missile capabilities. Even if you believe that they are actually honoring the START treaty by reducing certain types of nukes, they are simply growing their capabilities in other areas.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 128Convertibleguy View Post
But you hate Obama so much you cannot admit to the fact that the START treaty represents a real foreign policy accomplishment, something the previous two Presidents tried hard on and failed to achieve.

This is like dealing with a "birther".
So now I am acting like a birther? Interesting...
Well anyway, I have no personal dislike for the President because honestly I don't know him well enough to make that kind of judgement. I disagree with many of his policies, but that doesn't mean I have to "hate" him.

As for the new START treaty being an accomplishment of Obama's, especially since, as you say, the previous Presidents didn't accomplish it:

1) The new START treaty is a revival of the old one which was designed by Reagan and implemented by Bush Sr. It expired in 2009. His predecessors didn't fail to do anything. Simply put, Obama was the one in charge when the treaty expired and thus was the one who renegotiated it.

2) This "accomplishment" of his was part of a total reset of Russian relations: lifting of Bush era sanctions that resulted from the Georgian conflict; re-engaging in more diplomatic communications. This reset really accomplished nothing to foster US-Russian relations...because 4 years after this reset, Russia invaded yet another country, and we are back at the same level of relations we had at the end of Bush's Presidency (many would say that our relations with Russia now are worse than they were under Bush).

3) Please address the issues I have brought up earlier. Lack of verification of sub-launched and mobile-launched nukes. The fact that Russia is still growing its intermediate-range weapons (which are in fact a threat to everyone who lives outside of your fantasy world). The fact that the Obama administration acknowledged Russian cheating of inspections was possible.

I have brought forward many facts and educated assessments that show Obama's new START treaty, and his overall dealings with Russia, to be anything but a success. Now please dispute them with facts and evidence...or call me a birther if you aren't feeling up to the task.


Quote:
Originally Posted by 128Convertibleguy View Post
Sanctions might indeed have been justified, since we invaded another country on a premise equally flimsy to the ones Putin used. But it would be adding insult to injury. We've paid a price for this folly far beyond what any sanctions could achieve.
Yep, just totally ignore all of the below...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patronus86 View Post
Well if you really feel that way, you should first be demanding that the UN revoke resolution 1441, which gave Saddam one final chance to comply with weapons inspectors, and resolution 1483, which recognized the occupation of Iraq as legal in the eyes of the international law.

Last edited by Patronus86; 05-29-2014 at 02:18 PM.
Appreciate 0
      05-29-2014, 02:13 PM   #95
Patronus86
Banned
-55
Rep
269
Posts

Drives: 2013 335is
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Upstate NY

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2013 335is  [0.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soorena View Post
I'm not justifying Putin's act nor i'm questioning invading Iraq. Just saying these two situations are very similar yet the two got very different feedback.
Other than in both instances, one country used military force to occupy another country, they weren't similar at all...but I will leave it at that since I'm sure you disagree.
Appreciate 0
      05-29-2014, 02:14 PM   #96
128Convertibleguy
Captain
39
Rep
703
Posts

Drives: 2010 128 Covertible
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Mountains

iTrader: (0)

Smile

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patronus86 View Post
As for the new START treaty being an accomplishment of Obama's, especially since, as you say, the previous Presidents didn't accomplish it:

1) The new START treaty is a revival of the old one which was designed by Reagan and implemented by Bush Sr. It expired in 2009. His predecessors didn't fail to do anything. Simply put, Obama was the one in charge when the treaty expired and thus was the one who renegotiated it.
Factually incorrect. Treaties like this generally take years, and are negotiated well in advance. The old 1989 START treaty was obsolete, and, particularly, the verification process needed improvements to match advances in technology.

Both Clinton and Bush tried very hard to create a new START treaty. And both failed. Obama succeeded where they couldn't, with an excellent result, especially given the circumstances.

I'm not undertaking the fool's errand of trying to further persuade you about the verification of the treaty. Which is as good as anything we've ever had with Russia, or better.

No matter what I came up with, it wouldn't be good enough for you. And yes, that's exactly birther behavior.

Last edited by 128Convertibleguy; 05-29-2014 at 02:19 PM.
Appreciate 0
      05-29-2014, 02:52 PM   #97
Patronus86
Banned
-55
Rep
269
Posts

Drives: 2013 335is
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Upstate NY

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2013 335is  [0.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by 128Convertibleguy View Post
Factually incorrect. Treaties like this generally take years, and are negotiated well in advance. The old 1989 START treaty was obsolete, and, particularly, the verification process needed improvements to match advances in technology.
The START 1 treaty was old, but did last into 2009. But your right, the groundwork for treaties does take many years..which is why your argument that Obama succeeded with the New START where others failed is inherently flawed.

Reagan spent years negotiating with the USSR, but it wasn't until Bush Sr, that both sides felt comfortable signing the treaty. Bush Sr, Clinton and Bush Jr. all spent time and effort trying to revise existing treaties or initiate new ones (SORT, START II, START III) some of which were never enacted, but not for a lack of trying.

Obama didn't just magically develop this New START out of thin air..his decisions and policy goals were guided and shaped by what his predecessors had done.

Also your part in bold is blatantly contradicted by recent think tank studies (which I have referenced but you have refused to dispute).

Quote:
Originally Posted by 128Convertibleguy View Post
Both Clinton and Bush tried very hard to create a new START treaty. And both failed. Obama succeeded where they couldn't, with an excellent result, especially given the circumstances.
Despite the failure to negotiate the START II treaty (which faltered under Clinton), Bush Jr actually did negotiate a nuclear arms reduction with Russia via the SORT treaty. This treaty was implemented in 2003 and would have expired in 2012, but Obama negotiated the new START treaty to take its place. So this treaty not only helped to establish the groundwork for Obama's "masterpiece achievement" but in fact would have lasted well into Obama's Presidency. Bush didn't fail in that area and neither did Obama do anything truly groundbreaking.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 128Convertibleguy View Post
No matter what I came up with, it wouldn't be good enough for you. And yes, that's exactly birther behavior.
I think you are trying too hard to validate these obvious failures or mediocrities of Obama's as achievements. And you again blatantly ignore the heart of my argument in regards to Obama's New START treaty: lack of credible verification for SLBM's and mobile ICBM's; Russia's growing of intermediate ICBM's and cruise missiles in violation of the INF treaty; and acknowledgement that Russia could cheat the inspections.
Appreciate 0
      05-29-2014, 02:57 PM   #98
Patronus86
Banned
-55
Rep
269
Posts

Drives: 2013 335is
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Upstate NY

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2013 335is  [0.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by 128Convertibleguy View Post
Factually incorrect.
Also, the answer to this is no...on so many levels.

START I set the foundation for Obama's New START...I don't see how you can dispute that if you are the avid historian you claim to be.
Appreciate 0
      05-29-2014, 04:09 PM   #99
128Convertibleguy
Captain
39
Rep
703
Posts

Drives: 2010 128 Covertible
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Mountains

iTrader: (0)

Smile

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patronus86 View Post
Reagan spent years negotiating with the USSR, but it wasn't until Bush Sr, that both sides felt comfortable signing the treaty. Bush Sr, Clinton and Bush Jr. all spent time and effort trying to revise existing treaties or initiate new ones (SORT, START II, START III) some of which were never enacted, but not for a lack of trying.
Which is exactly what I said, and where you previously made the factual error of ignoring Clinton and Bush's efforts, and their failure. Here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patronus86 View Post
His predecessors didn't fail to do anything. Simply put, Obama was the one in charge when the treaty expired and thus was the one who renegotiated it.
That may be simple, but it's wrong. No one was waiting around for the treaty to expire. Clinton and Bush did negotiate with Russia, did try very hard, and did fail. SORT was a facesaving option for both sides that didn't do much.

As far as START lasting until 2009, that meant we had a two year hiatus with nothing much in effect, which is another thing Clinton and Bush were trying to avoid. Obama got a new treaty enacted a little over two years into office. One with the toughest verification procedures we've ever had with Russia. Quite an achievement.

Last edited by 128Convertibleguy; 05-29-2014 at 04:25 PM.
Appreciate 0
      05-29-2014, 04:48 PM   #100
Patronus86
Banned
-55
Rep
269
Posts

Drives: 2013 335is
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Upstate NY

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2013 335is  [0.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by 128Convertibleguy View Post
Which is exactly what I said, and where you previously made the factual error of ignoring Clinton and Bush's efforts, and their failure. Here.
I didn't ignore anything...and there was no failure on Clinton or Bush's part. START I was still in existence for Clinton's time and Bush's as well...and SORT was implemented to continue arms reduction past the 2009 end date for START I. You are creating failures where none existed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 128Convertibleguy View Post
That may be simple, but it's wrong. No one was waiting around for the treaty to expire. Clinton and Bush did negotiate with Russia, did try very hard, and did fail. SORT was a facesaving option for both sides that didn't do much.
Bush's SORT, though by no means as all encompassing and rigorous as START I, still did significantly reduce nuclear arms. And it was to be validated and verified using START guidelines had it stayed in effect. Bush didn't fail, and honestly neither did Clinton. They carried out existing policies or developed new ones to address arms reductions.

I think you make too much of a big deal that there might be time gaps in the nuclear arms reduction process....the fact that that the US and Russia are even talking about arms reductions is a big enough deal as it is...and every US President since Reagan, not just Obama, has had an influential hand in shaping and guiding that policy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 128Convertibleguy View Post

As far as START lasting until 2009, that meant we had a two year hiatus with nothing much in effect, which is another thing Clinton and Bush were trying to avoid. Obama got a new treaty enacted a little over two years into office. One with the toughest verification procedures we've ever had with Russia. Quite an achievement.
Again, you make too much of these time gaps in the arms reduction process....no one was planning on another arms race or starting WWIII once START I or SORT expired.

Also START I and SORT set the foundation for Obama's New START treaty... if you can agree that it took Reagan years to get anything accomplished with a nuclear disarmament effort that he started (in fact it was Bush Sr that implemented it) how can you argue that Obama drafted, designed and negotiated a new arms treaty all by himself? Obama's treaty simply built upon policy objectives and benchmarks that had already been established and had been in play for decades.

And on top of all that, Obama's New START treaty does have significant flaws in the verification process and is in fact being bypassed by the Russians who are growing their intermediate-range nukes....but you don't want to acknowledge those...because then Obama's already small list of foreign policy achievements would be even smaller.
Appreciate 0
      05-29-2014, 05:00 PM   #101
128Convertibleguy
Captain
39
Rep
703
Posts

Drives: 2010 128 Covertible
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Mountains

iTrader: (0)

Smile

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patronus86 View Post
Bush's SORT, though by no means as all encompassing and rigorous as START I, still did significantly reduce nuclear arms. And it was to be validated and verified using START guidelines had it stayed in effect.
Factual error. SORT had no verification procedures. None. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Read the actual treaty. It won't take you long, there's very little to read, maybe 200 words.

Your guy totally blew that concern off at the time.

"Some senators expressed concern that SORT remains weak, lacking measures to destroy warheads removed from deployment, assure both countries that the reductions are being undertaken, and guarantee avenues for future arms control negotiations. Committee chair Richard Lugar (R-IN) assured his colleagues, “Our agreements need not be based on mutual suspicion or an adversarial relationship.”

I assume you think that statement is idiotic, based on your concerns about new START, which is loaded with verification procedures, though not enough for you.

The appendix for inspection procedures alone in new START is 91 pages. About 100 times the length of the whole SORT treaty. If you're so concerned that we don't have enough about verification in new START, read that.

And also note "lacking... avenues for future arms control negotiations". Contrary to what you said, it did nothing at all to help Obama's new START negotiations' success.

Last edited by 128Convertibleguy; 05-29-2014 at 05:11 PM.
Appreciate 0
      05-29-2014, 06:29 PM   #102
bbbbmw
Major General
1845
Rep
5,201
Posts

Drives: 135i
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Southwest

iTrader: (0)

So Russia agrees to the NewSTART treaty, which limits both the US and Russia to 1,550 long range nukes each.

Obama decides to disarm the US even further, to 1,100, with no agreement by Russia to do the same.

Russia breaks a 1996 treaty, and beefs up short range nukes. We do nothing.

How is this an Obama achievement?

Oh, and again, what was his comment to the Russian President "tell Vladimir (Putin) that I will have much more flexibility after my next election" about? He never offered any explanation for that - how is it that the media let that go? Where is the "fourth estate?" Would they have let Bush off that hook?
__________________
<OO (llll)(llll) OO>

Last edited by bbbbmw; 05-29-2014 at 06:35 PM.
Appreciate 0
      05-29-2014, 06:32 PM   #103
Patronus86
Banned
-55
Rep
269
Posts

Drives: 2013 335is
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Upstate NY

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2013 335is  [0.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by 128Convertibleguy View Post
Factual error. SORT had no verification procedures. None. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Read the actual treaty. It won't take you long, there's very little to read, maybe 200 words.
SORT reductions were going to be assessed using START I verification procedures, as I have stated before, and as noted here:

https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/sort-glance

Also, START I was still in effect. So we were actually verifying nuclear disarmament of the Russian arsenal during the Bush presidency. The combined effects of SORT and START I did in fact reduce the nuclear arsenals on both sides...that is widely accepted throughout the international community.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 128Convertibleguy View Post
"Some senators expressed concern that SORT remains weak, lacking measures to destroy warheads removed from deployment, assure both countries that the reductions are being undertaken, and guarantee avenues for future arms control negotiations. Committee chair Richard Lugar (R-IN) assured his colleagues, “Our agreements need not be based on mutual suspicion or an adversarial relationship.”

I assume you think that statement is idiotic, based on your concerns about new START, which is loaded with verification procedures, though not enough for you.

The appendix for inspection procedures alone in new START is 91 pages. About 100 times the length of the whole SORT treaty. If you're so concerned that we don't have enough about verification in new START, read that.
I acknowledged that SORT was not nearly as comprehensive or rigorous as START I or New START...but since START I was still in effect under Bush, we were still verifying arms reductions through that treaty.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 128Convertibleguy View Post
And also note "lacking... avenues for future arms control negotiations". Contrary to what you said, it did nothing at all to help Obama's new START negotiations' success.
SORT established a Bilateral Implementation Commission (jointly US and Russian) that met twice a year to discuss arms reductions procedures and goals.

As well there were regular meetings and inspections taking place as mandated by the original START I treaty during the Bush years.

The combined effect of SORT and START I did reduce nuclear arms throughout Bush's years....

But other than all of that, SORT and START I did absolutely nothing to help Obama renegotiate the START treaty. Obama just made up the New START treaty out of thin air with no guidance or support from previous policies. Right?

Also, I find it funny that your argument has changed from: Obama's arms treaty with Russia was a success to Bush's arms treaty with Russia sucked.

You tout Obama's treaty like some panacea to the nuclear arms issue...though you still refuse to address the issues of verification and Russia's violation of the INF treaty.
Appreciate 0
      05-29-2014, 06:48 PM   #104
Patronus86
Banned
-55
Rep
269
Posts

Drives: 2013 335is
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Upstate NY

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2013 335is  [0.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by 128Convertibleguy View Post
I could also point out Russia made no secret of their building intermediate range cruise missiles, in violation of the 1987 treaty. The missiles represent no threat to us. Or, really, our allies. Unless you think Putin, emboldened by Ukraine, would launch them against a NATO country. Maybe Germany?
Oh yeah, and I'm going to point out that you did say that part in bold. We need to reduce ICBM's but don't worry about those other nuclear-tipped missiles...they can't wipe out entire cities...That makes sense to you @128Convertibleguy? Because it surely doesn't make any sense to me.

I really don't know whether or not Russia made a point of hiding their buildup of intermediate range missiles...the real question is did President Obama know about Russia's violation of the 1987 INF treaty when he had the Senate ratify his New START treaty.

Any and all disarmament progress made by the NEW START is irrelevant so long as Russia is free to do what it wants with its nuclear cruise and intermediate ballistic missiles.
Appreciate 0
      05-29-2014, 07:18 PM   #105
128Convertibleguy
Captain
39
Rep
703
Posts

Drives: 2010 128 Covertible
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Mountains

iTrader: (0)

Smile

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patronus86 View Post
SORT reductions were going to be assessed using START I verification procedures, as I have stated before, and as noted here:

https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/sort-glance
Factual error. START expired before the Russians had to implement SORT. From the above reference.

"SORT has no provisions for assessing compliance. The Bush administration argued against such provisions, citing improved U.S.-Russian relations. Instead, the two sides said they would rely on the 1991 START verification regime for verifying implementation. However, START I expires December 5, 2009, three years before the SORT limit takes effect."

That's a big "however". SORT was widely viewed as meaningless.

New START was hailed by arms control organizations as a major step forward. Major reductions in strategic weapons that could reach the US. Strong verification procedures. Approved by the Senate 71-26. A clear foreign policy success for Obama.

To try to equate the two, or to say SORT was a useful step toward new START, is utterly in conflict with the facts.

Last edited by 128Convertibleguy; 05-29-2014 at 07:43 PM.
Appreciate 0
      05-30-2014, 01:35 AM   #106
Patronus86
Banned
-55
Rep
269
Posts

Drives: 2013 335is
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Upstate NY

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2013 335is  [0.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by 128Convertibleguy View Post
Factual error. START expired before the Russians had to implement SORT. From the above reference.

"SORT has no provisions for assessing compliance. The Bush administration argued against such provisions, citing improved U.S.-Russian relations. Instead, the two sides said they would rely on the 1991 START verification regime for verifying implementation. However, START I expires December 5, 2009, three years before the SORT limit takes effect."
Read the whole article. SORT was going to be verified using START I methods and procedures. President Bush was going to renegotiate an extension of START I in order to ensure these inspections would take place into the next presidency.

However two things to keep in mind:
1) START I was still in effect under Bush, so arms inspections and reductions were in fact still taking place.

2) Towards the end of Bush's second term, Russia did invade Georgia which certainly dissuaded any political drive to renew arms treaties. In that context, Bush had no incentive or desire to extend the START treaty or seek completion of the SORT's verification because Russia was acting aggressively. Also he had no idea who the next President would be and what his/her foreign policy towards Russia would be. His time for implementing new policies was up and he knew US-Russian relations were going to be addressed by the next guy.

You see a failure on Bush's part to extend the START treaty even further into the future...though START was still active when Obama took office.

I see it as Bush making the decision to leave the treaty as it was and let the next President decide how he wanted to approach US-Russian relations. How was Bush supposed to know that Obama would try to initiate a total reset of US-Russian relations?

Quote:
Originally Posted by 128Convertibleguy View Post
New START was hailed by arms control organizations as a major step forward. Major reductions in strategic weapons that could reach the US. Strong verification procedures. Approved by the Senate 71-26. A clear foreign policy success for Obama.

To try to equate the two, or to say SORT was a useful step toward new START, is utterly in conflict with the facts.
New START was based off of START I, and iterations of START II and III which never went active....Obama didn't do anything new or special other than get the treaty signed. And SORT and START I did in fact reduce US and Russian nukes...compare our nuclear stockpiles in 2001 to those stockpiles when Obama took office in 2009.

I don't equate SORT to START I or New START..I acknowledge that Bush's treaty wasn't nearly as rigorous..and I have explained the reasons why that was so.

What you won't acknowledge is that New START is in no way an accomplishment for Obama because:
a) the Russians are bypassing these arms control measures by growing and maintaining nuclear cruise and intermediate ballistic missiles.
and
b) there are significant verification deficiencies with New START.
and
c) Obama's implementation of New START was put of a larger effort to "reset" relations with Russia that has largely failed. Ukraine is being occupied, Russia is supporting our enemies in Syria and Iran, and US-Russian relations are worse than they were under Bush.
Appreciate 0
      05-30-2014, 09:32 AM   #107
128Convertibleguy
Captain
39
Rep
703
Posts

Drives: 2010 128 Covertible
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Mountains

iTrader: (0)

Smile

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patronus86 View Post
Read the whole article. SORT was going to be verified using START I methods and procedures.

1) START I was still in effect under Bush, so arms inspections and reductions were in fact still taking place.
Factual error. No SORT reductions were even scheduled to take place until _three years_ after START 1 expired, so they could not possibly have been inspected by START 1 procedures. One more time, from the article.

"SORT has no provisions for assessing compliance. The Bush administration argued against such provisions, citing improved U.S.-Russian relations. Instead, the two sides said they would rely on the 1991 START verification regime for verifying implementation. However, START I expires December 5, 2009, three years before the SORT limit takes effect."

So SORT could not possibly have been monitored under START 1, because START 1 would (and did) expire three years before the Russians had to do anything at all under SORT. There was also nothing said in SORT about renegotiating START. SORT was pretty much a sham. The article acknowledges that. Senator Lugar (R) acknowledges that.

200 words of meaningless pablum, which never went into effect. Never had any way of being verified. Obama replaced the meaningless SORT with more extensive reductions, under a rigorous verification procedure. Yet another Bush foreign policy failure that Obama and Clinton cleaned up. Add it to the list. Iraq, Afghanistan, Bin Laden, SORT, START renegotiation, ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patronus86 View Post
US-Russian relations are worse than they were under Bush.
Relations with Russia have gone South since Putin took over. Think Romney could have changed that? Mario Rubio? Rand Paul? Michele Bachmann? Rick Perry? Ted Cruz? If foreign policy is important, there's really only one choice in 2016. An experienced Secretary of State, with extensive personal contacts, hugely respected in the world, both by ordinary people and national leaders.

We're going in circles. I'm done. Feel free to have the last word.

Last edited by 128Convertibleguy; 05-30-2014 at 10:19 AM.
Appreciate 0
      05-30-2014, 01:42 PM   #108
Patronus86
Banned
-55
Rep
269
Posts

Drives: 2013 335is
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Upstate NY

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2013 335is  [0.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by 128Convertibleguy View Post
Factual error. No SORT reductions were even scheduled to take place until _three years_ after START 1 expired, so they could not possibly have been inspected by START 1 procedures. One more time, from the article.
Once again you are misreading these articles. SORT was an ongoing effort once it was signed. The verification of these reductions wasn't scheduled to occur until 2011, but arms were being dismantled, at least by us. SORT reductions on the US side did take place.

"To comply with this treaty, the U.S. must reduce the number of operationally deployed strategic nuclear warheads to between 1,700 and 2,200 by 2012. In 2004, President Bush issued a directive to cut the entire U.S. nuclear stockpile—both deployed and reserve warheads—in half by 2012. This goal was achieved in 2007, five years ahead of schedule, making the total stockpile almost 50 percent less than it had been in 2001"

from:
https://www.llnl.gov/str/JulAug08/trebes.html

I cannot argue with any certainty that SORT was enforced by Russia because we didn't verify that. But it is common knowledge that Russia's nuclear arsenal was reduced between 2001 and 2009, when Obama took office, (regardless of whether it was solely through START I or a combination of SORT and START I). That is a fact. Noted here:

http://bos.sagepub.com/content/66/4/77.full.pdf+html

Russia had 21,000 nuclear weapons in 2001 and 13,000 nuclear weapons in 2009.

So again, there was no failure on Bush's part. Arms reductions were achieved. The existing treaties weren't extended at the end of Bush's 2nd term because Russian-US relations had cooled significantly.



Quote:
Originally Posted by 128Convertibleguy View Post
Obama replaced the meaningless SORT with more extensive reductions, under a rigorous verification procedure. Yet another Bush foreign policy failure that Obama and Clinton cleaned up.
Again, Bush's dealing with the Russians on arms control was very much shaped by the Georgian Russian war. There was no reason for Bush to solidify future arms reductions with a nation that was invading its neighbors and a new US President was about to take over.

Also I have noted that New START does have deficiencies with its verification process..but I guess you are deaf/blind when it comes to my counter-arguments.

Clinton and Obama didn't "clean" anything up in terms of US-Russian relations. They initiated a total reset of relations which ended up backfiring and making the US look like the world's village idiot.


Quote:
Originally Posted by 128Convertibleguy View Post
Relations with Russia have gone South since Putin took over. Think Romney could have changed that? Mario Rubio? Rand Paul? Michele Bachmann? Rick Perry? Ted Cruz? If foreign policy is important, there's really only one choice in 2016. An experienced Secretary of State, with extensive personal contacts, hugely respected in the world, both by ordinary people and national leaders.
I don't blame Obama for US-Russian relations going south, and I do think New START has a noble intent (though flawed process)..I blame him for his incompetent response to Russia's bully tactics. He quite literally had advantage of hindsight. He saw how Bush's attempts to foster US-Russian relations were thrown out the window when Russia illegally invaded Georgia.

And despite that insight, Obama still decided to reset US-Russian relations:
-He lifted sanctions that had been imposed on Russia by Bush.
-He withdrew missile defense systems from eastern Europe
-He negotiated a flawed arms reduction treaty
-He has ignored Russia's violation of the INF nuclear arms treaty
-He has ignored Russia's overt and covert support for Iran and Syria

He did all of this either because he didn't pay attention to the last few years of US-Russian relations (prior to his presidency)

or

Because he was arrogant enough to believe that he could transform US-Russian relations in the span of a few years.

And in the end Russia has taken advantage of Obama's inept foreign policy to invade foreign countries, violate nuclear arms treaties, and support Iran in its own arms quest and support Assad's brutal regime.

Your girl Hillary was intricately involved in much of this, so in addition to Benghazi, she is going to have a lot to answer for if/when she decides to run. Besides Arms Reductions, which I don't consider her achievement but I know you do, please list all of Hillary's foreign policy accomplishments....I'm really eager to see your explanation of what makes her so qualified.
Appreciate 0
      05-31-2014, 06:44 PM   #109
Patronus86
Banned
-55
Rep
269
Posts

Drives: 2013 335is
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Upstate NY

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2013 335is  [0.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by 128Convertibleguy View Post
Relations with Russia have gone South since Putin took over.
Also, you are living on another planet if you think Putin has ever stopped ruling Russia at any point in the last decade.

Medvedev may have served as the President for a brief period, but Putin has always been the one making making the decisions since 1999.

So your statement that relations went south because Putin took over Russia is complete nonsense..Putin had always been ruling.
Appreciate 0
      07-19-2014, 10:43 PM   #110
m3ray
Banned
No_Country
33
Rep
701
Posts

Drives: '09 e92 M3
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: New York City

iTrader: (0)

I am amazed this thread has not been updated (or another thread created) about the Malyasia commerical airliner that was shot down. Seems plausible to believe Russia had a heavy involvement.
Appreciate 0
Post Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:39 PM.




m3post
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
1Addicts.com, BIMMERPOST.com, E90Post.com, F30Post.com, M3Post.com, ZPost.com, 5Post.com, 6Post.com, 7Post.com, XBimmers.com logo and trademark are properties of BIMMERPOST