icon bookmark-bicon bookmarkicon cameraicon checkicon chevron downicon chevron lefticon chevron righticon chevron upicon closeicon v-compressicon downloadicon editicon v-expandicon fbicon fileicon filtericon flag ruicon full chevron downicon full chevron lefticon full chevron righticon full chevron upicon gpicon insicon mailicon moveicon-musicicon mutedicon nomutedicon okicon v-pauseicon v-playicon searchicon shareicon sign inicon sign upicon stepbackicon stepforicon swipe downicon tagicon tagsicon tgicon trashicon twicon vkicon yticon wticon fm
14 Dec, 2010 22:34

US Senate set to vote on New START

The US Senate is poised to ratify the New START nuclear arms reduction treaty with Russia before leaving for Christmas, according to a senior White House spokesperson.
US Senate set to vote on New START

David Axelrod claimed there is enough support for the crucial agreement to be passed, but that does not mean it will be easy or that some will not object.Ivan Eland, a senior fellow and the director of the Center on Peace & Liberty at the Independent Institute said he is confident the treaty will pass, and it must pass before the end of the year. In the new Congress it will be much harder to push through because many of the incoming Republicans oppose the agreement. “It has to pass now, or it’s going to be dead for a while,” he explained. In a previous speech, John Bolton, who opposes the New START Treaty, argued the treaty assumes the world still exists in a bi-polar, Russia vs. US environment. It fails to consider other issues, like rogue states. Jacob Hornberger, the president of the Future of Freedom Foundation explained that Bolton, like others interested in the expansion of the American empire have to continue to spread an imperialist view. They do this by pressing threats on states like Iran and North Korea with embargos, sanctions and other penalties and then when the states react, they insist a reduction in arms would endanger America. “It’s the standard imperial message,” said Hornberger. “What these people, these interventionist, cannot comprehend is the role that the US empire creates in its attempt to dominate the world, control the world, it creates the incentive for these so-called rogue nations to acquire nuclear weapons.” Eland echoed his sentiments, arguing interventionism does not protect America. “They [interventionists] are going on their larger vision of a US empire,” he said. “There is a difference between securities for the homeland.” He explained there needs to be a focus on protecting America, not expanding elsewhere and creating greater threats. “Empire and security are totally different and I think one contradicts the other one. We do need to get rid of the empire, at least retract it and our security here at home will be better,” Eland said. Hornberger argued there is a segment of American liberals and conservatives who like the idea of an American empire through dominance and military strength. “What we need to do in this country, the American people, is raise our vision to a higher level. That is, dismantle all this imperialism; the invasions, the occupations, dismantle this military industrial complex and then free the private sector to interact with the people of the world freely. Drop the embargos and sanctions and so forth,” he said. “This nation was founded on the idea of becoming a model society for freedom here at home, and making that model serve as an exemplar for the rest of the world rather than using imperial troops to go and bomb and invade countries in name of brining them freedom.”