Quantcast

Comments about ‘Obama calls ratifying START treaty US imperative’

Return to article »

Published: Thursday, Nov. 18 2010 10:20 a.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
KM
Cedar Hills, UT

"imperative?" Here we go again with the "this deal won't last, pass it!" rhetoric. This means it is imperative that we stop this imperative as quickly as possible. No legislation should be hurried (imperative) through. We should consider things a bit longer... I think.

Mark B
Eureka, CA

Some will oppose whatever the president proposes, for as long as he proposes it. In the meantime, there is NO agreement with Russia, and NO on-site inspections taking place. I would think that alone would scare those who think Russia is still under Communist Party rule into following the smartest Republicans, such as Lugar and Scowcroft, who support the treaty. As for "hurrying" things through Congress, that's exactly what I said about attacking Iraq. I wonder what KM thought THEN?

David
Centerville, UT

Obviously hurrying the Iraq attack through congress was wrong. Whenever a "salesman" (in this case, the president) is saying to hurry and "buy" this deal I always grab my wallet and back out of the room. It is good to take the time to study this issue. Republicans and Democrats are both stating a reason for the treaty is to have renewed verification of arsenal levels in Russia. Obviously there is distrust of Russia. Shouldn't we make sure the treaty will actually provide verification?

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments