Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Recency  | 
Page:  « First  ‹ Previous  1 2 3 (3 total)
happy-happy, joy-joy
11:30 AM on 12/22/2010
Lorelei Kelly's article is very insightful. It offers an opinion based upon the stark reality of the world we live in. She is up front about the "Delay, Deny, Distort, and Defeat" policy of the Far Right Wing Ideology.

It's the truth - and the truth can be hard to come by these days.

Way to go, Lorelei...
11:07 AM on 12/22/2010
Reagan operated from a position of strength whereas Obama falls over himself
diminishing America. Considering the current treaty expired a year ago, it's hard
to believe waiting for the new Congress in two weeks will bring on the end of the
world. Anyone who trusts Obama on the national scene hasn't been paying
attention to his actions.
11:51 AM on 12/22/2010
Really?? Obama's administration has had significant impact in improving the economy with consistent GDP growth and job losses improving from when he took office; Health Care reform - first time in nation's history; repeal of DADT; major financial regulation reform; combat troops out of Iraq...not bad for first couple years in office. You must have missed it...probably due to the fact that your head was up your a_ _.
Eppur Si
Obamacare delenda est!
11:31 PM on 12/23/2010
Well, if you consider "improving" job losses to be the goal, I suppose so. And Obamacare will "improve" the number of dead people. It's all getting better and better....
Steve Kettmann
Berlin-based writer
11:57 AM on 12/22/2010
Reagan tried to GIVE AWAY our nuclear arsenal at talks in Iceland. That was the position from which he operated: He was flexible.
Rick Staggenborg
Blogger, radio host, activist, psychiatrist
12:06 PM on 12/22/2010
Reagan also weakened America by trying to outspend the USSR. What his defenders don't understand is that if they truly believed that communism was inherently inferior to capitalism, they would have known that it would fall of its own dead weight. The truth is that it was bankrupted by its own choice to go into Afghanistan. Now we are repeating the folly thanks to neoconservatives and their followers who blindly accept a Bolshevized history.
01:18 PM on 12/22/2010
Reagan, for many reasons, is hard to admire. But it's an absurd statement to write that he tried to give away America's nuclear arsenal when negotiating in Iceland. C'mon man, stick to the facts and be truthful.
11:06 AM on 12/22/2010
Sure by our "reasonable" actions the unreasonable folks throughout the world will shape up.

Don't take me alive
12:16 PM on 12/22/2010
So you're suggesting we act unreasonably along with them? Is that REALLY your logic? Please, please PLEASE explain.
Eppur Si
Obamacare delenda est!
10:45 AM on 12/22/2010
So the old, regressive view of security involves doing things to make us, like, secure? Nah, much better to show our enemies how nice we are by unilaterally disarming. That always works out well.
my micro-bio is empty, just like my life
11:08 AM on 12/22/2010
The USA spends more on its military than the next closest dozen or more countries: 40% of the total WORLD expenditure.

Russia went BUST trying to keep up with the USA.

Republicans will drive the USA BUST fighting old demons and new fantasies, and all without any taxes to pay for it.

INSANE! Utterly and truly crazy.

Who, pray tell are you going to nuke, now, that the USA hasn't enough hardware to destroy multiple times over?

No one is talking of "unilateral disarmament" it's a lir for you to say so.
Eppur Si
Obamacare delenda est!
12:08 PM on 12/22/2010
Why are you lefties always so angry? It's Christmas time, er, excuse me, winter solstice time. Go celebrate the repeal of DADT. Throw an egg at a rich person. Bake some cookies and take them to a Taliban camp to show how nice we are.
12:19 PM on 12/22/2010
The USA clearly SHOULD be spending more on its military than any other country. If I had a lot of expensive jewelry and a 65" plasma TV in my house, I would spend a lot more money on a security system than if I all I had was a ratty couch and a black & white TV with rabbit ears.

Plus, most of the other wealthy countries in the world can afford to not spend a ton on their militaries because they are our allies and they have the US military backing them up. They should be paying us tribute for their protection.
11:14 AM on 12/22/2010
No the old, regressive way of doing things is to bully and intimidate others into doing our bidding. The old, regressive way, is to assume every intractable political problem has a military solution. The old, regressive way looks at international politics and diplomacy as a zero-sum game to be won with guns, steel, and aggression. It agrees with von Clausewitz's old saw about how war is merely the continuation of politics by other means.
Eppur Si
Obamacare delenda est!
12:05 PM on 12/22/2010
I thought that was what I said. At least as to our enemies.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
The Lord will provide
02:54 PM on 12/22/2010
So, you disagree with von Clauswitz? Why, when his theory has proven itself over and over?!
When, and by whom, has politics been approached first by "guns, steel, and aggression" in the US?
Semper fi
JR Jake
09:57 AM on 12/22/2010
Oh please...............START means little when you already have in place 1,000's of existing nuclear warheads that few even know the locations. This earth could be absolutely obliterated with what is already in place. Sure, don't build anymore. Sure let's play nicely with the other kids.

Who is going to monitor and remove all the existing ones, and trust me NO GOVERNMENT will allow their current supply to be disarmed? They may reduce the number but they will always have 'that big stick' just as a reminder.

Policy needs to be followed by practice but the precept and principles is what keeps all things honest. Happy Holidays, I am still looking for mountain caves because that may be the next great real estate boom.
10:40 AM on 12/22/2010
Nuclear arms arsenals need to be diminished to meet long-term goals. Read "long-term" as "after the collapse of the current power structure." Nothing lasts forever, particularly not massive, over-reaching hegemonic states. Isn't it a good thing that when the USSR collapsed there were half as many nuclear weapons to secure then there would have been without START?

Sure, START may not accomplish world-changing goals in the short term. Yes, there are probably secret nuclear weapons that won't be monitored. But a lot of weapons will be monitored, which is certainly a good thing. Additionally, it supports our relationship with Russia, which may be crucial in major regional issues such as: a) enormous Russian energy reserves and their relationship to European economy and security, and b) North Korea.
JR Jake
01:02 PM on 12/22/2010
You want to talk long term? It takes less than 20 minutes for one warhead to reach land 1000's of miles away. Russia might have rid themselves of old and tired missiles with only short range capabilities. Do you actually think nothing was built in their place? Oh silly and naive one...................
Liberal blogger
10:58 AM on 12/22/2010
I agree. It's essentially a joke and means nothing. Just another way for congress to waste time and this time appear that they are doing something.
09:51 AM on 12/22/2010
And like a "sign of the times" all the older Republicans who already served in the Government are on-board, because they are not subject to Tea Party Dictates. This coming year and I have said this often, is going to be very interesting in the Republican House and the newly elected Senate Members, with the Tea Party favorites battling it out with more Mainstream Republicans.