Thoughts?

Thanks guys (and gals )

President Bush may have a point about having more power in being able to defend the US, but I think that lifting the ABM treaty will trigger a lot of backlash from other countries.

The US is the strongest nation in the world. But that being said, our weakness was exploited on September 11. It is hard to protect every aspect of the American way of life. Our "politically correct - must have our freedoms at any cost" way of life makes it very difficult to insure our safety. Having ABM's before September 11 would not have stopped the tragic events of that day. I see this getting out of the ABM treaty as a way for President Bush to proceed forward with an unproven "Star Wars" defense that was being discussed last summer. I still am not a fan of that system as I had said in posts a few of months back.

Our defense against terrorism is to get our lives back on track. Quit being bleeding hearts for criminals and get our justice system back in order. Do the crime - do the time. Once we have an established justice system in place, criminals will have to go into legitimate line of work - or end up rotting in jail or facing a death penalty shortly after sentencing rather than waiting for twenty or so years for it to happen. People like OJ would be behind bars and not walking the street because he could afford to buy his freedom.

If another country attacks our citizens, they will have to face the military might of the USA. War is hell - and when people realize how bad it is, maybe then will there be world peace. Sittng back and allowing attacks to happen with no consequences does not promote peace. But if there is a policy in place that says you attack the US, you will be dealt with in a severe manner - do you really think that the attack would happen in the first place? Saddam's "Mother of all Wars" in 1991 and the "jihad" in 2001 was not very impressive. If we need a missle defense system for that, then I need hand grenades to swat at flies.

Who has the power and technology to send over a lot of missles? Not very many. Yes, it is true that many nations now have the capabilities to make (or have already made) the nuclear bomb. Many of them still have no way to deliver it. (Standing joke: Nukes delivered on a camel.) I still can't see where spending billions of dollars on an untested and unproven system is going to help in the battle against terrorism. Building up our military (giving our defenders of freedom better pay, benefits, and equipment) and strengthening our justice system will have a greater impact than any missle defense system will ever have.

------------------
Marcus��BR> Beating the competition is where the thrill is and that pride you get. It's an ego stroke �� to make no mistake."
-Mark Martin
A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing.

"Further, to decrease the pressures of technological change and its unsettling impact on the strategic balance, both sides agree to prohibit development, testing, or deployment of sea-based, air-based, or space-based ABM systems and their components, along with mobile land-based ABM systems. Should future technology bring forth new ABM systems "based on other physical principles" than those employed in current systems, it was agreed that limiting such systems would be discussed, in accordance with the Treatys provisions for consultation and amendment."

Read up on it here...

http://www.state.gov/www/global/arms/treaties/abm/abm2.html

1. This Treaty shall be of unlimited duration.

We can discuss the finer points of this treaty. Even though USSR does not exist as it did back then, it is still a treaty and
"This Treaty shall be registered pursuant to Article 102 of the Charter of the United Nations". And the United Nations as well as the United States still exist.

"Further, to decrease the pressures of technological change and its unsettling impact on the strategic balance..."

lol,lol,lol

This treaty is insane!

Ok, i missed this line:

"The most recent Treaty review was completed in October 1993. Following that review, numerous sessions of the Standing Consultative Commission have been held to work out Treaty succession -- to "multilateralize" the Treaty -- as a result of the break-up of the Soviet Union and to negotiate a demarcation between ABM and non-ABM systems."

And you thought they didn't have a sense of humor....