Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Cold War Déjà-Vu
In his speech in Prague, President Obama's rhetoric was essentially no different than that of George Bush. He promised, because of our "moral responsibility," to rid the world of nuclear weapons. He then averred that the US would not lower its defenses while others are pursuing a nuclear threat.
He's right about his last promise. Under his budget the US will continue to spend on defense (and a nuclear capability) more than all the rest of the world put together, "While others are pursuing a nuclear threat" an obvious reference to Iran, which our intelligence community reports is not pursuing a nuclear weapon. Obama who knows this intelligence information said to a cheering crowd: "As long as the threat from Iran persists, we will go forward with a missile defense system that is cost-effective and proven." So much for his recent peaceful overtures to the people of Iran whose defense budget is less than 1% of ours.
"Cost-effective!!!" The missile shield is the biggest boondoggle in military history with constant cost overruns. "Proven!!!" All tests have failed save one where the target's location was programmed into the interceptor guidance system. The President's false exaggerations are statements right out of a lobbyist's briefing paper. The missile shield in Alaska was deployed before the system was ever proven to work at a cost of $100 billion. The shield for Poland and Czech will cost more than $100 billion. The great majority of knowledgeable scientists, not on the payroll of the benefiting defense contractors, state that the system will not work and that a threat does not exist.
When we are hemorrhaging debt at home in the current economic meltdown and tanking unemployment does this expenditure abroad make sense? Barack sings a different tune when he's abroad. His hawkish statements in Prague are as inaccurate as Bush's were prior to the invasion of Iraq. Progressives are in for a lot more surprises to come.
The missile shield system has little to do with the phony nuclear threat from Iran or for that matter North Korea. It is the continuation of the arms race in space that started under the Clinton Administration. The missiles of the shield are really designed to shoot down orbiting communication satellites, thereby blinding and economically crippling a 21st Century enemy. But this can be done by any country that can launch a satellites. That's why Western Analysts are so concerned with the ICBM rocket capability of Iran and North Korea. For them this capability is vital for their defense by raising the threshold costs of superpower intimidation. They well know that their rockets are not a system to attack the US superpower, Europe, South Korea or Japan, where at best they can only inflict recoverable damages. Any sane leader knows that such an attack would bring about a national suicide, easily inflicted by any one of the 19 plus US and NATO Trident submarines.
The arms race in space is now evolving into the Cold War posture of MAD (mutual assured destruction), the only beneficiaries of which are the arms contractors around the world. President Obama's statements in Prague are Cold War, signaling that the military industrial complex (mic) investment in the political campaigns of the 2008 election will not only reap handsome rewards but will also insulate them from the pain of the present economic meltdown.



15 Comments so far
Show All"As long as the threat from Iran persists, we will go forward with a missile defense system that is cost-effective and proven."
-------------------------
Mr. Obama's approval rating hit record highs during his recent trip.
If we had a knowledgeable informed public he'd of been lambasted and discredited for uttering such an insultingly magnificent steaming pile of hope and change.
Unfortunately the majority of the public relies on corporate news propaganda for their understanding of complex issues not even remotely aware that it's nothing more than dis/misinformation designed to control their response (or lack thereof).
-------------------------------------------
Whoever controls the media controls the country. Period.
Mr. Gravel you are too honest for the Democratic Party, from my perspective, you need to be part of the third party movement.
"Missile shield" is a low rent version of Grandpa Caligula's (Reagan) Strategic Defense Initiative.
Herr Goebbels had it right, unfortunately.
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
Joseph Goebbels, Hitler's Propaganda Minister
1897-1945
"Naturally the common people don't want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same for any country."
Herman Goering to Gustave Gilbert at Nuremberg, 18 April, 1946
"Those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it." Santyana
Pockets
Here we have this Uncle Sam who used to be a generous sort to the less privileged and many pockets for the things of peace like the sick, infirm, the poor , the needy and to give all a chance to live a dream to the future.
Yet it has been for many years where this Uncle Sam has emptied his peace pockets and filled them with war implements, ideas, groups; not for the defense of the ideals set forth from our beginnings
The pockets are deep and giving to the privileged, the greedy who would not share and a war machine to help them acquire what they would from whoever they could with no thought to life or limb or others property or goods or any dream they may nurture.
This Uncle Sam is starting to look ratty and worn from being a practitioner of usury with the less privileged and loading up the “other class” and borrowing to and from the future, if any, from the pockets of peace. Peace has more pockets but empty ones and the war ones would keep it that way by hoping that we are nothing but lemmings
What are we? Tony 5/10/09
"WHO DO YOU WANT TO NUKE BARACK?"
Barack says, "Nobody,,,,, right now."
That question that Mike presented during the debates showed me what a sick SOB obomber really is. Instead of an unequivocal "NOBODY", he was hesitant to reply and had to throw in a disclaimer.
"President Obama's rhetoric was essentially no different than that of George Bush."
Glad to read that you are still listening Mike. I've noticed a lot of this too. Whenever it comes to empire obomber sounds little different than bush jr.
"THESE PEOPLE FRIGHTEN ME!!!!!"
That was the highlight for me from this last elections debates. All of the democratic candidates except for Kucinich and maybe Richardson did their best imperialist, belligerent, and bellicose george bush impersonations then Mr. Gravel emphatically makes the above statement. It made me glad to see that at least one of the candidates still had some sanity. It was like obomber, hitlery, biden, and dodd were marketing or begging to end the world. To me they were saying, "We're ready and willing to set the entire world on fire! If you think bush was good wait till I get the reins."
"the only beneficiaries of which are the arms contractors around the world."
Of course Mike would see that! It's too bad simple sanity is so lacking in large portions of the US population. Arms manufacturers and sellers are the biggest welfare queens of all time, but the banksters are giving them a good run for their money now.
When will all this insanity stop?
"Who the hell are we going to nuke? Tell me, Barack. Barack, who do you want to nuke?"
"I'm not planning to nuke anybody right now, Mike, I promise,"
"Good, We're safe then, for a while."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xTO5x0rlJJo
get yourself out there Mike, now's the time.
Surprise, common dreams published a Mike Gravel and Ralph Nader article on the same day. It almost makes you think that the website supports real progressive goals as opposed to the corporate democratic party leadership (aka republican party). Don't be fooled.
Probably many readers of this website don't know about Mike Gravel who was a democratic candidate in the last election, who along with Kucinich were pro-peace candidates, supporting universal health care (as opposed to the corporate health care that Obama supports). While some of the people who write comments were aware of Mike Gravel, it is sad that common dreams minimized and marginalized Mr. Gravel's voice during the primaries.
Mike Gravel was instrumental to bringing the Pentagon Papers to light during the Vietnam war, which played a role in bringing that illegal and immoral war to an end. And he had many good policies regarding the Middle East war. Not that the general reading public got to hear them hear on common dreams.
NotOneMore.US says: "Surprise, common dreams published a Mike Gravel and Ralph Nader article on the same day. It almost makes you think that the website supports real progressive goals as opposed to the corporate democratic party leadership (aka republican party). Don't be fooled."
Why are you here, NOM.US if you think Common Dreams is so lousy?
A lot of controversial articles are printed here everyday and certainly the comments cover a wide range of viewpoints.
I don't have the impression that this website supports "corporate democratic party leadership [aka republican party.)"
You say, "Don't be fooled." I don't consider myself a fool who is easily fooled. And I personally think this is one of the better political websites with quite a range that allows for a great deal of freedom of expression.
Perhaps I've missed something. What do you personally mean by "real progressive goals"?
/cm
Get out of the Middle East
Stop supporting Israel's apartheid treatment of Palestinians (stop all weapons sales)
Universal Health Care
No Bailout of the Corporate Elite while refusing bailout of auto industry because it will benefit unions. I don't support the corporate bailouts of either unless they both make other concessions and the tax dollars are repaid with fair market returns.
Decrease military spending.
Initiate Corporate oversight (the bailout shows that this was just another free gift to the corporate elite)
Complete withdrawal from Iraq
Sign the land mine treaty, and the cluster bomb ban.
While global may or may not be real, the monies that will be spend is just another waste of tax money instead on real issues. Don't support it.
Embrace organic food and strengthen regulations, including more food inspections.
Insist that corporations only buy from those overseas companies that have the same safety, environmental, and health laws that the US companies follows This is only common decency.
Investigate whether Bush committed war crimes. (oh wait, that would mean that Obama is committing war crimes along with many other elected officials, soldiers, commanders)
Endorse alternative energy sources, start a national rail system that is usable and affordable, and less environmentally damaging.
Support a law that support human rights for all, not just US citizens, and protects all individual's rights, regardless of race, creed, sex, or any other identifying factor.
Those are a few of what I think a progressive should support.
Sioux Rose
I wonder if would-be presidential candidates are vetted like a scene out of the Godfather, where they have to sit at the knee of one of the covert insiders of the opague global elite that seems to control big policy decisions. Must they say like parrots, "I will do all in my power to support war," or that they will similarly "Do nothing that means holding a previous administration accountable." "Even for war crimes?" "Yes. Even so." Is that how these individuals pass the snuff test? If so, than for all the power in that White House, for all the destinations Air Force One is likely to travel, the selling of the soul is a price that trumps these privileges. When a seat of power that could do so much good for so many instead becomes the excuse for engineering wars guaranteed to bring widespread misery all good things are inverted. Woe to any who subscribe to this model of governance. I would not wish to be in their shoes.
More from Senator Gravel here:
http://www.ni4d.us/
Mike Gravel - a true anti-warrior.
A Gravel-Kucinich presidency would have been more appreciated. Except for Gravel's idea of replacing the income tax with a national sales tax, everything else about him I liked. By the time the Democratic Primaries came up in VA, all I could choose from was Hillary or Obama, both of whom sucked !
It's a shame we don't have pols similar to Gravel who'd force the Pentagon to come clean.
If Obama really wanted a variety of ideas around him, not to mention someone who actually took action based on beliefs, he would have asked Mike Gravel to be an advisor.
Re: Third parties. I repeat, they will go nowhere without Instant Runoff Voting.