Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiBarack Obama Abandons Missile Defense Shield in Europe
Decision likely to delight Moscow, which saw itself as the target, but is met with dismay by Poland and Czech Republic
Barack Obama has abandoned the controversial Pentagon plan to build a missile defence system in Europe. The move has prompted angry accusations of betrayal from Washington's eastern European allies but delighted the Kremlin.
![[A demonstrator puts on a hat with a picture of a missile during a demonstration outside the U.S. embassy in central Warsaw, March 24, 2007. (REUTERS/Katarina Stoltz)]](http://www.commondreams.org/files/article_images/missileshield_scrapped.png "missileshield_scrapped.png")
In one of the sharpest breaks yet with the policies of the Bush administration, Obama phoned the leaders of Poland and the Czech Republic last night to tell them that he had dropped plans to site missile interceptors and a radar station in their respective countries. Russia had furiously opposed the project, claiming it targeted Moscow's nuclear arsenal.
Obama is to announce the reversal officially at a news conference today. This morning the Czech prime minister, Jan Fischer, revealed that Obama phoned him about it last night.
During a visit to Moscow in July the US president indicated he was ordering a 60-day review of the contentious plan. According to today's Wall Street Journal, the findings, to be released next week, conclude that Iran's long-range missile programme is progressing more slowly than previously thought. Citing US officials, the paper says the White House believes Iran's short and medium-range programme poses a more potent and immediate danger.
The US decision will cheer many in government in western Europe who believed the project was an unnecessary provocation to the Russians. But today the Czech Republic and Poland expressed extreme disappointment at the White House's decision to reverse track after six years of difficult negotiations. Senior sources in Warsaw and Prague said they would insist on the Americans honouring pledges they made to the Nato allies in return for agreeing last year to the plan for missile defence deployments.
Aleksandr Vondra – a former Czech deputy prime minister and ambassador to Washington intimately involved in the negotiations with the Americans – said he was surprised. "This is a U-turn in US policy," he said. "But first we expect the US to honour its commitments. If they don't they may have problems generating support for Afghanistan and on other things."
Under the Bush administration the Pentagon spent years planning and negotiating to place 10 silos with interceptor rockets in northern Poland and to build a large radar station south of Prague to defend against a perceived ballistic missile threat from Iran.
The central European countries were keen to acquire the US installations and other military hardware as partial security guarantees against a resurgent Russia. Moscow claimed the project was aimed against Russia and threatened to deploy short-range nuclear weapons in the Russian exclave of Kaliningrad, which sits inside the European Union.
Obama's climbdown is likely to be seen by Russia as a victory for its uncompromising stance.
Today, however, analysts pointed out the decision would help Obama secure Moscow's co-operation on a possible new sanctions package against Iran and would further his desire to "reset" relations with Moscow following a dismal period under the Bush administration.
It would significantly boost the chances of a new treaty on strategic nuclear arms reduction between Washington and Moscow, they said. Both the US and Russia have agreed to come up with a successor treaty to Start 1 by December, when the current agreement expires.
"Hardliners in Russia don't want an agreement on Start. It will be very difficult now for Russia to avoid an agreement," said Ruben Sergeyev, a defence analyst in Moscow. "It [the decision to drop the US shield] creates a very positive ambience, despite the fact it was really an artificial thing."
The decision strengthens Dmitry Medvedev, the Russian president, who is due to make his first presidential trip to the US next week for the G20 meeting in Pittsburgh. The Obama administration has been keen to boost Medvedev's standing and authority at home, seeing him as a more moderate and less hostile interlocutor than Putin.
Today the Nato secretary general, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, said Obama's decision was "a positive step". Rasmussen said he had been briefed by the US envoy to Nato about it.
But the timing of the announcement is regarded as disastrous by the Poles. Eugeniusz Smolar, a former chief of Warsaw's Centre for International Relations, said: "We are disappointed." But he added that the Polish government had been assured by the Americans that promises of training with Patriot missile batteries and help in modernising the Polish military remained valid.
A few weeks ago, in a cri de coeur to Washington, several senior eastern European officials and public figures wrote a public letter to Obama complaining that their security interests were being ignored by the west in order to improve relations with Moscow.
Rasmussen, in his first big speech, is to call tomorrow for a new relationship between the western military alliance and Russia, taking more account of Moscow's security and strategic interests.
Russian experts said Obama's decision could only be seen as an unambiguous concession to Moscow, adding that it would severely disappoint the new Nato countries of eastern Europe. Yevgeny Miasnikov, a senior research scientist at Moscow's Centre for Arms Control, said the US administration would now consider ways of assuaging the Poles and Czechs, which might include providing Poland with Patriot interceptors capable of shooting down short- and medium-range missiles.
"Obama has taken a step in the direction of improving US-Russian relations. This will definitely help build a partnership," Miasnikov said. "Russia will also now make some concessions, maybe on strategic talks over nuclear arms reduction or maybe over Iran.
"Moscow will try to catalyse the process of improving US-Iranian relations and will facilitate dialogue between the two sides. I don't think threatening Iran is the way to solve this problem."
69 Comments so far
Show AllPretend you come from another planet but somehow you know how to speak and read the dominant human languages and know your biochemistry.
As Harvey Wasserman and many others have documented, the human effort to control nuclear power is lunacy. Laboratory experiments with isotopes is probably a good thing because they extend our knowledge of physics and the universe, but what we are doing with nuclear power and "depleted uranium" is ultimately Entropic to our species, which has been around for less than the half-life of some of these waste nucleotides.
Yucca Yucca Yucca. The entire nuclear regime, whether Iranian, Israeli, Indian, Russian, British, French, Chinese, North Korean, etc., but mostly USAn is a collective global lunacy.
There may be a suicide gene... But not in everybody!
No Nukes!
-30-
I take the same view as Clovis on this one. Israel do not want Russia to sell the latest anti aircraft missile systems to Iran. Netanyahu goes to Russia. Israel is in constant contact with Obama. Russia agree to stop sales. Obama agrees to stop plans to site missiles in Eastern Europe. Obama steps up the rhetoric against Iran.
This whole thing is resembling the build up to the Iraq war, with one significant difference. Iran will be able to reply to an attack by Israel, even if they are unable to stop their own nuclear facilities being severely damaged. At what stage in the hostilities would Israel resort to using nuclear weapons? At the start? After an attack on Tel Aviv?
Israel only need to use half a dozen nuclear weapons against Iran to cause an unbelievable disaster, and what would they do with the rest? What are the targets for the rest of their arsenal? What is the range of their missiles? What is their mindset, and how far would they go? How many lives (possibly all?) are they willing to sacrifice if other countries try to take revenge on them?
Israel is the single most dangerous country on this planet.
So,
here we have an article where the reporters are reporting on the Czech Republic and Poland, while they are sitting in Moscow, Russia, and Brussels, Belgium.
This is a piss poor article. A disgracefully bad article.
There is far better reportage on this from the viewpoints of Czechs for one, on Czech news sites, such as Radio Prague.
I wonder if there's any connection between this and Netanyahoo's impromptu visit to Russia the other day.
David Swanson of AfterDowningStreet has an angle not mentioned here.
He reports that the people of the Czech Republic are responsible for keeping the missile shield out of their country:
..."The people of the Czech Republic collected signatures, organized 130 mayors, went on hunger strikes, won a vote, and took down a government."
He goes on to report:
..."You can expect none of this to be mentioned in US media coverage of their victory. Instead you will be told that this victory is Russia's. Never mind that when pushing for these outposts of empire the United States claimed they had nothing to do with Russia. Score one more victory for nonviolent people's resistance, and announce it, because nobody else will."...
There are further links here:
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/46122
Very good, Cygnus. Thanks for the extra perspective.
Thank you, Mr Obama.
"Time will tell." Ugh. That's what one of the three delusional people I debated on the Afghan War said to me, and I replied, "No, we know right now that the Afghan War is stupid and counter-productive-- we don't need another minute to decide that," and he hasn't spoken to me since. But the truth is that its idiocy was apparent to anyone who'd actually seen a bit of Afghanistan so long as it wasn't by way of a guided tour by the Military or the propagandistic government of the USA. Furthermore, this idiocy was apparent part way through candidate Obama's campaign to anyone who knew a bit of the history of Afghanistan, but many of these more educated persons, able to make distinctions in their lives, would vote for Obama anyway. I did and I'm proud of it. Why?
Because of a decision like the one IN THIS ARTICLE. Only a very good person would choose for peace like that, realizing that a less threatening posture in the world by us Americans is exactly what the doctor ordered. And any opposing reader (not any dear reader)-- if you can't see this, we really don't have much to talk about. You're free to call me an idiot, which is what I DO call you.
Hey Bottle, maybe you need to lay off the bottle a bit. And you definitely need to hone your reading skills. (For one thing, I'm probably more against the Afghan war than you are. I've been against it from day one and have never even accepted the premises for going to war: that is, the supposed guilt of the Taliban in the events of 9/11.) The point I was making in my post was simply that if indeed, as some have inferred, Obama is withdrawing Bush's ridiculous "missile shield" plans in exchange for a promise from the Russians that they will not sell anti-aircraft missiles to Iran, it could be an alarming signal that he is clearing the way for an Israeli strike on Iran. Now, if you're the good antiwar pacifist you say you are, you should be against that, shouldn't you? And when I said "time will tell," I meant that we shall soon see whether or not this was the true purpose of Obama's apparent gesture of peace. Until now, Russia's looming presence in the background, and its relatively friendly relations with Iran, have been a major deterrent against US (and, by extension, Israeli) action against the mullahs' regime.
You see, things, especially in politics, are not often what they seem. As you, who voted for Obama, should know by now. Now go in peace, and try not to be so abusive of people you think disagree with you. They may in fact be on your side.
the imaginary missile shield, yes the Russians wanted it gone, but they know, heck we know, that it was symbolic/nonworkable/not a real military threat to Russia (at least in the near term)...it was the presence of thousands of US troops and tech, that would make it very valuable as a trip-wire for the Eastern Europe nations against potential future Russian invasions.
So my question is ...would the Russians sacrifice a real durable strategic partnership with Iran for what is a symbolic, one time only, concession from the US?
Time will tell.
jlocke123, I disagree with your premise that the missile shield was non-workable. It would have been tied directly into the overall US nuclear offensive/defensive system. Along with other units it was a very workable asset in a first strike offensive against Russia to take out any defensive missiles launched by Russia.
As for the trip wire, it is a very plausible argument, however given the number of US and Israeli "advisors" in Georgia/S. Ossetia it certainly didn't stop the Russian counter attack.
Indeed.
There are rumors circulating that the missile shield in Central Europe was to be used as a bargaining chip with the Russians to keep them from selling anti-aircraft missiles to Iran. I have no way to verify this, but if true, the "good news" of Obama's "withdrawal" could be ominous indeed, especially as the foam at the mouth of the rabid Zionist dog has been particularly dense of late in the presence of the perceived "Iranian threat." Yesterday's Newsweek piece, "Intelligence Agencies Say No Nukes in Iran" (http://www.newsweek.com/id/215529/output/print), points again to elements in the U.S. intelligence community trying to stem the pro-Zionist war fever, even in the face of other elements within the government and in Europe (and, natch, in Israel) who are waving their arms in mock distress over the wicked mullahs' supposed nuclear-weapons ambitions. Time will tell what all this really means.
EVERYTHING in International Relations is a bargaining chip.
The US missile was / is a bargaining chip. Russia's going around hocking the S300 air defense missiles to various countries that are antagonistic to the US is ALSO a bargaining chip.
Check this out, I nearly fell off my chair when I read the caption:
Barak Says Nuke - Armed Iran Couldn't Destroy Israel
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2009/09/17/world/international-uk-israel-iran.html
Then I realized what it really was, just another Zionist foaming out of both sides of his mouth & hypocricitically bragging about what they have/do but others aren't supposed to have/do. No doubt, he will soon reverse his position and go back to "oy, Iran wants to destoy Israel," "oh, the holocust," "oy!"
Clovis, my fear exactly.
That whole area is a mess filled with weapons and irrational people fighting wars that go back hundreds of years.
The only reason that I can see that we are there is because of the resources and because of Israel.
Why people would want to form a new nation in the midst of a hornets nest is beyond me. It probably seemed like a good idea at the time.
But I wish it wasn't my problem sometimes.
That's one of the reasons that the separation of Church and State is so important.
Whenever you get involved in religious matters trouble is usually not far behind.
And the U.S. imperialistic policies since WW2 have dug us a hole so deep that the whole world may implode before we figure a way to make peace and not war.
At this point I don't really care about the details...who has missiles and who doesn't.
I figure that the arms dealers are doing their job legally or illegally and what it will take to stop them I can only imagine.
The fact that our young President is not adding to the mess is applaudable and I support him all the way.
Some one's gotta start dismantling this mess even if it is only a token gesture.
We should care about who has nuclear missiles and who has thousands of nuclear missiles set to be launched.
I was surprised that the statistics and dangers given in Ellsberg's memoir/nuclear-weapons research installment were not mentioned in the article above or in the broader comments and anaylis made by CD members.
Nuclear winter was mentioned briefly, but the myriad possibilities of conventional Middle East area wars expanding into major nuclear exchanges is the 800 pound gorilla sitting behind the whole situation in West Asia.
I was happy that Obama gave improvement of American-Russian relations as a benefit of the u-turn on the missile defense crisis.
Building stronger and stronger policies of trusting and warm bi-national relations between the two nuclear super powers appears to be the most urgent precaution and the safest long-term priority-goal of our future governments and the ones in Moscow.
Because our nation has never experienced the devastations of modern wars, and the Russians, Europeans and Chinese have, the entire world population and its eco-systems will safely exist only if we can turn our tens of millions of pugilistic citizens away from their naive and juvenile love of war.
Our national culture is neurotically confrontational, contemptuous, arrogant, ignorant, insensitive, combative, dominionist, imperious, and predatory.
Masculinity insecurity dominates America.
The "bring em on" spirit of the dangerously dominant demographic groups in our nation is the most likely cause of WW3 and the "nuclear winter" that will end human life. Chris Hedges last week described the emotional trends leading us toward that "end time" more authoritatively than I can.
Our present foreign policies are almost as "offensive" as those of Cheney Bush and Rumsfeld. Our next president and his administrators may be far more militaristic than the Bush or Obama teams.
We are not going to get people like Nader as president because the voters are far too far from becoming politically smart enough to vote in anti-imperialists as leaders.
Even if the Polish-Czech missile shield is fake and its cancellation "merely symbolic," it is the only good forein policy sign we have seen in the past ten years.
Reading the comments on progressive websites in the days since Ellsberg's first installment came on the web, I am amazed that I haven't seen a huge explosion of comments on Ellsberg's revelations.
Why is that?
-"At this point I don't really care about the details...who has missiles and who doesn't"
Well that is a problem. "the devil is in the details" Lots of people DO care that the US or Russia have missiles, and so should you. Have you ever visited Nagasaki?
-"The fact that our young President is not adding to the mess is applaudable and I support him all the way.
Some one's gotta start dismantling this mess even if it is only a token gesture."
How exactly is Obama not adding to the mess? Or did you not notice the record breaking "defence" budget? What do you think they are doing with that money?
"a token gesture"? If that is all you want, bring back Bush and compassionate conservatism. Remember! ..."America doesn't torture"...don't sweat the "details" (aka "facts").
I don't know why you're so angry. There's not much that can be done at this point except to try and speak your own truth.
I have been working for peace my whole adult life and have come to the conclusion that while it is good work...we have certainly passed the 11th hour in many ways.
I really don't know what you expect the President to do. He certainly can't dismantle the military industrial complex in a few months.
I don't think you realize how difficult it must be for him to try and turn the ship of state to calmer waters.
I have spent some time involved in local politics in a small town and believe me...it gets ugly when you try to pass laws for the common good. The good ole boy network gets very nasty, vindictive and violent when you go up against them. It doesn't matter to them if the whole town shows up in opposition to their plans. Their justification is that they were elected by popular vote so leave them alone to do their job i.e. make money for them and their friends. I can only inmagine what it must be like in D.C. when sleepy a town of 6000 citizens can't even get their own way.
I just do the best I can to work for the common good and then try to find a sort of peacefulness in my spare time. If I let them take away my happiness in the sweet and simple things of life like singing and dancing and hanging with my family...then they have really won.
Hallelujah!!!!!! Now if only they would cancel the entire missile defence project.
"I know not with what weapons World War 3 will be fought, but World War 4 will be fought with sticks and stones." - Albert Einstein
Europe needs the Missile Defense Shield™ to protect it from the psychopathic state of Israel.
That's unlikely.
Let's criticize Israel's racist occupation and violence against the Palestinians, but let's not start swinging at ghosts.
The entire state of Israel would be rendered neatly unlivable by a single warhead. They will fight countries with sharply limited means, not other nuclear powers.
Not every psychopath is a suicide.
They have 200 of their own, the release of which would trip failsafe systems in a number of places around the world. They'll take a lot of us with them, if not the entire planetary ecosystem. Does anybody think the fanatics led by Benjamin Netanyahu and Avigdor Lieberman wouldn't press the button?
I think not, not at Europe, and because of the retaliation.
But why would you imagine that if bombed, having a so-called defense shield run by Americans in Europe would not prevent the Israelis from hitting that same button in any otherwise identical situation?
More likely it would provoke it. Either way, the results would not be better with an American defense shield, even for Europe. "Defense missiles" comprise poor defense for populations in any event. The one thing they do provide is the threat of reprisal. Europe has more than plenty of missiles to provide a deterrent to Israel.
Anything beyond that becomes worse than pointless in terms of security. Specifically, the so-called shield makes Europeans targets of responses to constant and widespread American aggression.
And make no mistake, American aggression stands likely to expand. The Americans are not in Iraq or Afghanistan because Cheney thought these were security risks to the States or because the US could not have just purchased the oil more cheaply. The US acts against the possibility of Indian or Chinese cooperation with Russia or Europe over gas and oil from Central Asia. The US acts to cut off oil to rival powers, Europe included.
That plan does not offer a lot of stability in general. Particularly, the stability and security of the European peoples is not a priority for the government of the United States.
jareilly, I think the number is closer to 250, but no matter, it will, in one fell swoop, be more than sufficient to solve this sticky global warming issue by the subsequent precipitation of nuclear winter.
The next step can be found in that Book of Armaments, code named Dr. Strangelove; thus we should be attending immediately to strategic imperatives regarding mine shafts and not allowing the enemy to get ahead.
Mr. President Obomber, we must not allow a mine shaft gap.
Please, Sanctuary, your last paragraph, the one containing your clever acronym, didn't seem to pertain to any necessity, and thus needless. Too many gratuitous potshots going on everywhere and cluttering discussion.
Bob Pomeroy, satire is always necessary. I like clutter.
Note to progs and libs:
Sure, it's good news.
But what it really is is the 'good cop' part of our government's ongoing GC/BC routine.
They totally f@#k us on health care 'reform,' then toss out a bone that includes the word 'Bush' for extra-added distraction. As in, "BO Drops Bush Missile Shield."
Our reaction should be: yeah, great. Now - about that whole totally f@#king us on health care 'reform' thing...
I reckon you've nailed it.
Let's take the little bone and grab for a tibia.
Maybe Mr. Obomba ain't old enough to remember having to jump under our desks at school in case the Communists tried to kill us. Last I heard that was Russia.
Communism in Russia pretty much ended with the bloodless fall of the Soviet Union 18 years ago. The percentage of the Russian population that votes Communist now is only around 15% and that likely the older non-working generation that had greater prosperity under a system where rent was just a few dollars per month.
The major stronghold of Communism is now China, albeit a rather business oriented version as, fiscally, China pretty much owns the USA. That's rather ironic isn't it?
Russia has no designs on invading or attacking the USA so there is no need to hide under your desk, not that it would do any good anyway. It might however be a good idea to stop baiting the Bear so much by surrounding it with NATO and meddling in Georgia, Azerbaijan and the various "stans".
I have to wonder what the deal was that precipitated this withdrawal. I can only speculate that it has to do with Iran and S300 defensive missiles and possibly coincides with Benjamin Netanyahu's recent visit to Russia. It is possible that it has to do with various supply routes into Afghanistan now that the situation is worsening there but given that US foreign policy is largely dictated by Israel I think the former is more likely. Speculation anyone?
Howard Zinn on "The Myth of the Cold War":
http://www.radio4all.net/index.php/program/2250
I also think it has more to do with throwing Russia a bone than with throwing domestic progressives a bone. Your idea is as good as any- maybe we'll see more Russian support for Israel in the next few months.
Perhaps. But mightn't Russian support around Afghanistan and Iraq be more to the point?
The US has to be angling towards controlling the region's hydrocarbons. It seems likely that some kind of deal between Moscow and Washington over transport of Russian gas has been arranged or is in the offing.
This is good news! This US president is finally doing something progressive, and the primary whiners against this in the Czech Republic and Poland will be hard right war mongering politicians now having too much power in both countries. With this clear loss of their influence in the US capital in Washington, the more progressive politicians and their supporter may gain ground substantially, and that's all for the good. This might well lead to more of policy of negotiation and diplomacy than one of confrontation and renewal of a Cold War which was wrong in the first place and kept this country from getting a peace dividend for way too long.
AD
It's good news, but Obama is basically just stopping something illegal. The United States is a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty. According to Article 6 of that treaty, all nuclear armed nations must make efforts in "good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament." But that's just the 1st part of why this is the law.
According to Article 6, Section 2 of the US Constitution, all international treaties to which the United States has signed are "the supreme law of the land."
This means that The Non-Proliferation Treaty, including Article 6, is already "the supreme law of the land." Therefore, the nuclear weapons policies of the Bush administration- including new weapons development and testing, as well as the policy of assisting other nations like India in building their nuclear arsenal- are all illegal and unconstitutional.
There are plenty of examples of how we are still breaking this law.
Is it good news? You and I believe that this programme is a violation of treaty, but Obama hasn't said that. So why put the emphasis on the illegality? Obama, or the next US president can still build these things wherever they want, at least they reserve the right to violate the treaty.
And the spending, in the billions, on these missiles, continues, transferring taxed and borrowed money to military corporations, and that is the point of these programmes, really, isn't it?
Dangling bargaining chips made out non-functional "star wars" systems that are ramped up and cancelled, and then ramped up again only to be re-cancelled, in front of Russia was just a bonus feature.
Ok, so your argument is what, that removing missiles from Eastern Europe is bad news?
"This thing is good" and "more would have been much better" are different statements. It is possible to hold both thoughts in your head simultaneously. If you do it slowly.
It is good.
I wish that the U.S. would get out of everywhere...defend ourselves if we are attacked and let our people live in peace.
-"Ok, so your argument is what, that removing missiles from Eastern Europe is bad news?
-"This thing is good" and "more would have been much better" are different statements. It is possible to hold both thoughts in your head simultaneously. If you do it slowly."
I'm copying your post "actually" so that I can refer to it without any references to "naderites" poping up, after the fact.
Now I mean, c'mon! "removing missiles"? Since no missiles were ever there, how exactly is it "good news" ? Or are they being "removed" the way the US normally deals with imaginary "WMD", ie we are talking imaginary removal of the non-existent?
...And more would be much better? More of what? More imaginary missile removal? Go for it Obama. Next he can announce that he won't be violating, say the torture treaty in, say, Sweden...He could even remove the "missile shield" from there at the same time! Good news! ...but notice how the missiles are still being developed, the torture (sorry, rendition) is still going on. What has really changed?
Now on a personal note, I believe your heart is in the right place, I can see that, your misteps are most probably the fault of sloppy thinking rather than sophistry so forgive me if my sarcasm gets a little ahead of me. You keep on writing what you think is best.
This is an outrage! Both Liechtenstein and Andorra have definite plans to develop nuclear weapons in order to attack the UK, France and Deutschland. They must be stopped and only we can do it! Obama is an appeaser!
Mordechai,
while distracted by hotbeds of terrorism, ballistic nukes and safe havens in places like Liechtenstein, it would be a mistake to forget Burkina Faso, Benin and Togo.
They were slighted by being excluded from the "Axis of Evil" triumvirate and intend to make good on that.
You can't be too careful these days so I'd say a jolly good bombing is in order, don't you agree?
Actually, Mordechai, the real threat to be worried about is that "nation within a nation," San Marino, hotbed of Catholic jihadis planning to overthrow Rome itself.
Thanks for the preview of coming Reich-wing talking points, Mordechai.
You've saved me the trouble of tuning in to hear insHannity's interview with John Bolton.
I think it is a step in the right direction.
Congratulations President Obama. You proved the bedwetting Naderites wrong !
Wrong on what exactly? Did you read the article Nathan?
For one, wrong that Bush and Obama are exactly, precisely the same.
Note the hysterical attacks here:
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/07/28/10645
"Defenestrator" (me) posted a video where Obama talked about cutting missile defense. Watch the "more radical than thou" crowd pounce. The link has since been removed; it was a video interview of Obama where he talked about cutting missile defense programs. I posted it, and was summarily attacked for propagating Obama's lies.
I am no Obama-zombie. But facts are facts.
Let's go through this slowly for your benefit.
our friend Nathan says that Nader is "wrong".
I ask him, wrong about what?
Now you, "actually", add:
-------------------------------
For one, wrong that Bush and Obama are exactly, precisely the same.
Note the hysterical attacks here:
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/07/28/10645
"Defenestrator" (me) posted a video where Obama talked about cutting missile defense. Watch the "more radical than thou" crowd pounce. The link has since been removed; it was a video interview of Obama where he talked about cutting missile defense programs. I posted it, and was summarily attacked for propagating Obama's lies.
I am no Obama-zombie. But facts are facts.
-------------------------------------
So you, "actualy", have given us a link to an article by Chalmers Johnson that doesn't mention Nader once, not once...
...and this is supposed to answer the question "wrong, about what?"
I'm glad you don't see yourself as a zombie, but what "facts" are you referring to?
Let me go through this slowly for *you* now, since you love the sarcastic tone.
Nathan didn't say that Nader was wrong. He said the Naderites were wrong.
So, we'll start with what the conversation was actually about, not what you made up. Read the original comment "slowly" so it sinks in. Naderites meaning the people on these boards who mindlessly and with great venom attack anyone who dares say "Obama is a better choice than McCain". I provided a chat board with an example of what the original poster was actually talking about (as opposed to what you made up).
Slow enough?
Smug + incorrect = annoying.
Yikes! It looks like we need to start over:
Let's re-read the title of the article for starters... "Barack Obama Abandons Missile Defense Shield in Europe" Any reference to Nader there? No.
Then we have Nathan saying that Nader was wrong, "Naderites"? OK, it says Naderites. (pity there is no edit button!...so that he could go back, change what he wrote...maybe someday it will be invented.)
I ask, how, exactly is Nader proved wrong? And about what? (since the article doesn't mention Nader, sorry Naderite...since you presumably think that Naderites believe something which has been proven wrong, something Nader has never said, otherwise why do you make the Nader/Naderite distinction?)
Now you contribute an article from, Chalmers Johnson? was it? that, again doesn't mention Naderite or Kryptonite or any other exotic minerals. Oh yes, there are posts attached, These posts are by people you call "Naderites", ergo "Naderites" are somehow proven wrong...about something...you didn't say what exactly.
After this post of yours, I point out the non sequitur...sorry if that annoys you :)
Then you make some observations about sarcasm, which again...relevance? (an attempt at diversion perhaps?) Actually I can't decide what bothers you more, the sarcasm or the fact that I'm right!!
Nebraska Nathan thinks that throwing in the adjective "bedwetting" makes everything crystal clear.
Joe
Whatever the causes of this decision are, I am very pleased that this plan has been cancelled.
Of course, it would be interesting to see what these causes are. But can one ever get to the bottom of such a decision?
As for me, I would suspect that the catastophic financial situation of the U.S. government is finally beginning to put some curbs on its fanciful military adventures in the land of Full Spectrum Dominance.
Some sharp comments in the posts, particularly regarding the elitist point of view taken by the article and its inability to give voice to the masses of people in Poland and the Czech Republic who opposed this militaristic project.
Abendland, if it was contingent on Russia not implementing the S-300 ground to air defensive missile batteries around Iran's various nuclear facilities then it might not be the otherwise wonderful news that it seems. In other words if this is a go-ahead to Israel to obliterate the underground structures with the the US's deep penetrating bombs then the domino effects from all this could be very, very bad.
Let's hope not and that this represents a small example of sanity in an insane world.
You are right about the unpopularity of the missile defence (offence?) by the populations of Poland etc.
Have you noticed that this is a general trend these days -that talking points are essentially dictated by the "establishment" whether that be the government state media, think-tanks or political agendas? The voice of the people goes largely ignored.
Now that Obama has decided to eliminate the NATO missile shield, watch most of our "progressive" pundits again give Obama a great deal of praise for doing a no-brainer. CAMPAIGN SPENDING LIMITS NOW!! WE NEED MUCH BETTER POLITICIANS!!
One wonders if it's abandoned because of money, or lack thereof. Nevertheless, it's a good thing.
Good!!!
"The move has prompted angry accusations of betrayal from Washington's eastern European allies..."
No, the angry accusations were from these countries so-called leaders, not the people of these nations.
"Today the Czech Republic and Poland expressed extreme disappointment at the White House's decision to reverse track after six years of difficult negotiations..."
No, only the so-called leaders and elites are dissppointed.
"The central European countries were keen to acquire the US installations and other military hardware as partial security guarantees against a resurgent Russia."
No, only the so-called leaders and business elites of the Czech Rpublic and Poland wanted these installations. The people were overwhelmingly against them.
"several senior eastern European officials and public figures wrote a public letter to Obama complaining that their security interests were being ignored by the west in order to improve relations with Moscow."
Only the security intersts of the elites, who no doubt stood to make lots of money off services provided to these expensive military installations, are being ignored. This move was purely for US foreign policy interests, not a response to popular interests, but it does end up serving them.
This article never mentions the millions who opposed these missiles and understood the ludicrousness of the purported "threat" from Iran. By the way, why is a protestor in Warsaw carrying a sign in Greek?
Yes, opinion polls show some 80% of Czechs and 50-60% of Poles opposed to the US missile plan. There is not a Pole or Czech stupid enough to believe that the missiles have anything to do with any Iranian programme. I just don´t know how Obama could stand there and talk about supposed Iranian missiles. Just what is happening in the USA?
'"This article never mentions the millions who opposed these missiles and understood the ludicrousness of the purported "threat" from Iran." '
Great reminder, pjd412. In our current downward spiral here in the US, and in our still strongly overdeveloped sense of self-importance, we tend to forget that our brothers and sisters around the world know how to demonstrate and struggle.
Thank you, rational people in Europe!
Joe
That's exactly right. The article is written entirely from the viewpoint of elites, slurring over the "minor" distinction between "the population" and "political leaders."
Also, when the article says "In one of the sharpest breaks yet with the policies of the Bush administration...", the phrase "one of the sharpest breaks" should be replaced by "one of the only breaks."
At least give Obama credit where it counts. You bedwetting Naderite Republicans are hoping that Obama fails.
It's about time! The 'star wars' program as it was called in the 80's was the brain child of Reagan (I think he must have been in to many sci fi movies over the years). The Republican's have wasted billions on a program that doesn't work. Every Republican President always digs it up and revives it. As far as I am concerned, it's only one of a long line of programs that needs to be scraped.
Not so fast--this program was never going to get through in the first place--Bush was dumb to even try it--on the other hand O'bomber is smart and knows when not to beat a dead horse. What we really want is when he's smart enough to know not to kill a live man women or child of Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, or Palestine. And besides if we attack Iran--whose left to shoot missiles anyway?
I agree. The whole plan was a PR move from the get go.
Thanks for the explanation. I was wondering why Obama would miss a chance to militarize a situation.
I note The Guardian says Iran's short and medium-range [missile] "program" poses "a more potent and immediate danger." I wonder if "program" means they don't have any of those missiles either? Will Obama OK an attack by Israel? Or will Iran, like Columbia, be spared because we are already consumed with other issues?
At last, we got something for our vote. One small step for humankind.
yes jc it sure is. we'll see how this pans out. obama's
strength is his ability to make friends. however the russians
look at this internally the one thing that's true here is
this its one less thing for obama to worry about as he
has so much on his plate here. and wether or not we
agree on those programs thats another issue.
One move towards sanity. I am sure that there are convoluted political agendas behind it, but if we approach them by de-weaponizing, then problems can be solved with less savagery.
Joe