Obama vows to go ahead with missile shield: Polish president

[Cali_Democrat]

Source: AFP

1 hour ago

WARSAW (AFP) — President-elect Barack Obama has told Polish President Lech Kaczynski he will go ahead with plans to build a missile defence shield in eastern Europe despite threats from Russia, Warsaw said on Saturday.

"Barack Obama has underlined the importance of the strategic partnership between Poland and the United States, he expressed his hope of continuing the political and military cooperation between our two countries.

"He also said the anti-missile shield project would go ahead," said a statement issued by Kaczynski after the two men spoke by telephone.

Warsaw and Washington signed a deal on August 14 to base part of a US missile shield in Poland, amid Moscow's vehement opposition and mounting East-West tensions over Georgia.

Read more: http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5g8uvlFL1xJlpcGiBAlk5w_P3xhCg

[ixion]

1. *sigh*

and so it begins. :(

[ohio2007]

54. new boss

it never ended as the iraqi govt aknowledged;

Arab media (including Al-Jazeera) reported today:

Iraqi Presidency Council said in its first reaction to Barak Obama winning the U.S. presidential election: there is only one U.S. policy in Iraq, and the changes that may occur during Obama's time "would be only technical."
http://raedinthemiddle.blogspot.com/

[MetaTrope]

57. This is why Obama and Clinton were the only Dem candidates the MSM would let out the gate

[jkappy]

67. same as the old boss...

just in a hipper style

[Aslanspal]

70. For God's sake the Cold war is over!

We should do what is best for that region instead of picking sides, but we do need Russia against Iran, there is so much potential upside economically in that region, why? did Bush stir it up.

We should tell Russia to get along with its neighbors just as we get along with Canada and Mexico and tell Ukraine and Georgia get on board the properity trian and start getting along with Mother Russia.

[MadHound]

2. Stupid, stupid, stupid,

Trying to look tough on defense, and will only further the second Cold War with Russia. Stupid move Obama, you should know by now not to back anything that Bush has initiated.

[rpannier]

4. Before everyone panics

Kaczynski lies -- A LOT.

Wait until you hear that from Obama's mouth

edited for spelling

[Cali_Democrat]

5. Very true

Obama hasn't spoken publicly about this issue recently so let's wait and see.

[MadHound]

6. If that's what's going on, then Obama needs to come out now and put a lid on it

It's this kind of talk that really pisses off the Russians, and I can see them overreacting and dragging missiles to the Polish border, and away we go.

If Kaczynski is lying, call him on it. If he isn't, then Obama needs to back off this really stupid idea.

[dipsydoodle]

15. I'd have said exactly the same as you

Lech Kaczynski and Georgia's Suckyawilly are like two peas out of a pod - both liars.

[POAS]

16. When I read the headline I thought OH NO then I

read that it didn't come from Obama but rather from Poland and I was relieved.

Believe it when you hear it from the man!

[Kolesar]

18. Kaczynski obviously has an agenda and wants to shape the message

Even if he is not wrong, he is out of line on this.

[fascisthunter]

33. rpannier, I'll Wait

I hope Obama does not go along with this. This is not the time to rub salt into the wounds Bush and his Neo-Con nuttieness have created.

[Dover]

75. Well perhaps he has to say that.

Think about it.

[Gullvann]

10. I don't like this.

I have many Russian friends. Putin, certainly, is no angel. But, why of why do we have to stick them in the eye like this?

I live on the border to Russia :-(

[wordpix]

30. "you should know by now not to back anything that Bush has initiated." BINGO

STAR WARS, BE GONE. :puke:

[rpannier]

3. I'll wait to hear that from Pres-Elect Obama

I have a brother who lives in the Czech Rep and says that Kaczynski says lots of things that aren't true

[Swagman]

7. hey guys..don't panic ! you just elected a real diplomat.

[Ian David]

8. I think Russia understands that the "shield" won't work, anyway.

And besides, now they have tested "stealth missiles" that would sail right through it.

[hack89]

14. That assumes that the shield is aimed at Russia

considering the small numbers of interceptors and their location in Poland, that is not a likely proposition. Russia understands that this system has no impact on their deterrent - their missiles aimed at us fly over the north pole. They simply don't like the idea of Poland and other Eastern European stated moving into the NATO sphere of influence.

The shield will most likely work well enough against a small number of missiles from the ME - we have demonstrated that technology.

[Gullvann]

17. I agree. But, the Russians offered compromise deal

Why not look at that?

Surely Poland is not the best place to intercept missiles from Iran?

[hack89]

22. It was not a deal - it was a threat

they are trying to intimidate Obama.

Poland is actually the perfect place - it allows the earliest detection by radar, therefore giving more time to intercept. The Balkans would be a better location but they are too politically unstable.

[Gullvann]

24. Why was the proposed deal in Azerbaijan a threat?

[glinda]

42. Poland is always caught in the middle of things

and it's history has proven that.

[wuushew]

53. The Baltic coast is hardly "the perfect place"

Hundreds of miles of lateral offset make for good design?




If you believe radar and interceptors point toward a missile threat vector, why does that imaginary arrow point toward St. Petersburg and not Tehran?

[hack89]

72. Balkans not Baltic. nt

[PugNot]

23. You nailed it...

Russia knows this deployment is only for what Bush has said it was for, defense against a small number of missles thrown up by a rogue nation. No way in hell could it defeat Russia deterrence. It would be like spitting in a forest fire. Russia is just is pissed because the former Eastern Block countries are cozying up to the West. Given the Russian oppresssion during the Soviet days and the Russia attack on Georgia, who can blame them? BTW there was just another successfull test of the system the other day. So it does work. If it didnt the Russians would be mocking the system.

[dantyrant]

29. Proof?

Russia doesn't know that, and Russia certainly doesn't believe that. Who believes that Iran is going to target Europe with missiles? Seriously, lets get real.

BTW, even the NYT is (finally) admitting that Georgia started the war with Russia.

This is not about mutually assured destruction or deterrence. This is about moving to what an article in Foreign Affairs calls 'compellance' -- essentially using the threat of first strike to have Russia submit. It is a very dangerous policy and one that the Russians are not likely to allow.

Let's be clear. The rest of the world understands what this is about. We need to stop lying to ourselves about the motives underlying our foreign policy.

[hack89]

73. When America deploys interceptors in Canada, let me know

until then, we pose no threat to the Russian ICBM fleet. The shortest route is over the Pole - this system in Poland poses no military threat to Russian.

[dantyrant]

76. It is a strategic and tactical threat.

And it is one they may well feel forced to respond too. I wouldn't dismiss Russian concern quite so quickly.

Here's a recent article from RIA Novosti. Note that this was before the war in South Ossetia and the subsequent talk of fast-tracking Georgia and Ukraine into NATO(which the Germans, thankfully, seem to oppose).

MOSCOW, June 18 (RIA Novosti) - The U.S.-proposed European missile shield will eventually spread along Russia's borders and may neutralize Russia's nuclear potential by 2012-2015, a Russian political analyst said on Wednesday.

Commenting on reports that the United States and Lithuania were formally discussing deploying elements of the U.S. missile shield in the ex-Soviet Baltic state should Warsaw reject Washington's plans to station 10 interceptor missiles in Poland, Leonid Ivashov, the head of the Moscow-based Academy of Geopolitical Sciences, said: "We should expect that elements of a U.S. missile shield will be placed not only in Lithuania, but also in all territories bordering Russia and controlled by NATO."

So far, the Czech Republic has agreed to host an early-warning radar on its territory. Poland has taken a tough stance in missile talks with the U.S., demanding that Washington upgrade its air defense systems in return.

Ivashov said the main purpose of the U.S. global missile shield was to neutralize Russia's nuclear potential by 2012-2015 and that NATO eastward expansion was part of this plan.

He said Ukraine's and Georgia's possible accession to NATO would have dire consequences for Russia's defense capability.

"There is no doubt that elements of the U.S. missile shield will be placed in Georgia and Ukraine immediately after they join NATO," the analyst said, adding that Ukraine already had radars that may be used against Russia.

"The U.S. wants to create an impenetrable shield capable of intercepting and destroying Russian nuclear missiles on launch pads, in the initial trajectory, in orbit and on the final trajectory," he said.

Ivashov criticized the Russian leadership for "wasting time in empty rhetoric with the West," rather than taking concrete steps to counter the looming threat.

He suggested that Russia should threaten to sever all relations with NATO if the U.S. missile shield is eventually placed in Europe.

"Russia must also warn the European countries that...in case of a potential military confrontation...capitals, large cities, industrial and communications centers of the countries hosting elements of the U.S. missile shield will inevitably become the primary targets of nuclear strikes."

[Ian David]

59. The Russians get to use their faux outrage against the "shield" as a bargaining tool.

Not to mention that they get to use it as an excuse to feed their own military-industrial complex.

On the other hand, having the "shield" in Poland gives the U.S. and NATO an excuse to have more resources stationed close to Russia.

And I also wonder if the "shield" installations might also serve as a sophisticated "listening post" to spy on Russia and their allies.

[ohio2007]

55. Ironic, how is a shield an offensive weapon ?

That assumes that the shield is aimed at Russia
The aged population of eastern europe may have a little insight on being over run by defensive measures of military powers greater then their own.

[hack89]

71. Defensive weapons can be offensive

if they neutralize or alter the balance of power. Russia and China are not thrilled with the idea of America extending an anti-missile shield to their neighbors - it alters the balance of power in a way that minimizes one of their strongest military assets.

I personally think that we should offer any such protection to any friendly ally that requests it.

[dantyrant]

28. Russians see the missile shield, rightly, as being able to deliver a first strike

The Russians know that the missile shield stands no chance against a TOPOL-M. The missile shield is not, as claimed, a defensive weapon, but rather a weapon of first strike that, in theory, would be able to take out Russia's nukes in a blind attack. This is why the Russians are screaming bloody murder, and they're 100% right.

[muriel_volestrangler]

36. You're claiming that these are missiles designed to attack ground installations?

What's your basis for that?

[dantyrant]

40. Well, lets start with logic.

If a missile defense shield can't defend against missiles, then why build it? It's understood that ANY missile defense shield, no matter how good, can be overwhelmed by a large number of targets. Always. (This is the case for missile interceptors, not necessarily for whatever laser based programs might be in development).

Now, if logic doesn't suffice, here's some linkage:

http://www.financialsense.com/editorials/engdahl/2007/0619.html

A western reader of mainline press would conclude that Russia has unilaterally reverted to its Cold War stance and threatens world peace. The reality is a little different. As Putin told the G8 press in comments almost completely blocked out in western media, “if this missile system is put in place, it will work automatically with the entire nuclear capability of the United States. It will be an integral part of the US nuclear capability.”

In other words, missile “defense” is not defensive at all. It is offensive. If one of two nuclear opponents has nuclear strike ability and even a modest shield against retaliation from the other, he has what NATO strategists have dreamed of since the mid-1950’s: Nuclear Primacy. You can simply dictate terms of surrender to the other. The first nation with a nuclear missile shield would de facto have ‘first strike ability.’ Quite correctly, Lt. Colonel Robert Bowman, Director of the US Air Force missile defense program, recently called missile defense, “the missing link to a First Strike.”

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=5939

The Bush administration is maneuvering in a way that will allow it to achieve what Nuclear weapons specialist, Francis A. Boyle, calls the “longstanding US policy of nuclear first-strike against Russia”.

In Boyle’s article “US Missiles in Europe: Beyond Deterrence to First Strike Threat” he states:

“By means of a US first strike about 99%+ of Russian nuclear forces would be taken out. Namely, the United States Government believes that with the deployment of a facially successful first strike capability, they can move beyond deterrence and into "compellence."… This has been analyzed ad nauseam in the professional literature. But especially by one of Harvard's premier warmongers in chief, Thomas Schelling --winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics granted by the Bank of Sweden-- who developed the term "compellence" and distinguished it from "deterrence." …The USG is breaking out of a "deterrence" posture and moving into a "compellence" posture. (Global Research 6-6-07)

That’s right. The real goal is to force Moscow to conform to Washington’s “diktats” or face the prospect of “first-strike” annihilation. That’s why Putin has expressed growing concern over the administration’s dropping out of the ABM Treaty and the development of a new regime of low yield, bunker-busting nuclear weapons. The “hawks” who surround Bush have abandoned the “deterrence” policy of the past, and now believe that a nuclear war can be “won” by the United States. This is madness and it needs to be taken seriously.

And here's the scariest one: http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20060301faessay85204/keir-a-lieber-daryl-g-press/the-rise-of-u-s-nuclear-primacy.html

[muriel_volestrangler]

50. Ah, you mean a weapon of 'third strike'

ie first strike is the USA attacking Russia with nuclear weapons; Russia launches the second strike with what nukes it has left after that; and the missile shield is used to mop up those Russian nukes in flight. I thought you were claiming that these were actually secret nuclear missiles, rather than interceptors, that would be used in a first strike.

It's possible that the purpose of them is to support a first strike; but they're not well placed for defending the USA against attacks from Russia - as noted on this thread, those tend to go over the Arctic. Potentially they could defend Western Europe against Russian missiles; but I'm not convinced that any American general or politician who was seriously contemplating a nuclear first strike would be that worried about defending Europe.

[dantyrant]

66. Not at all. First Strike.

Read what Putin has said about the missile shield. Putin, whatever one might think of his motives, understands the strategic implications of the missile 'defense' shield.

Incidentally, the word defense seems to cause some confusion here. It has as much to do with our defense as the Dept of Defense, really.

The idea is that we can take out their nukes with one first strike, and that after that they'll have to submit to US domination. Think about the type of strategic calculation these Strangeloves are making in even thinking of deploying this system.

[Ian David]

52. Why build it? It's called Corporate Welfare for Aerospace Companies. n/t

[dantyrant]

61. That too, of course! n/t

[Ian David]

51. So, it's designed to be capable of a ground-to-ground strike? n/t

[ikojo]

9. So much for

change

[Sal Minella]

25. Lets wait and see what Obama himself says -- Anyone with an agenda can make up fake news.

[stillcool]

43. yeah really..

one blip of so and so said so and so, and the guy is trashed and bashed..same old, same old..before he is even President. So much for 'supporters'. Cracks me up.

[Iterate]

11. Expensive, flawed, dangerous.

Throw them a bone with continued research, if you must, but do not deploy.

I thought that during the primaries Obama had expressed unequivocal support for the George Shultz (and others) plans for the global abolition of nuclear weapons? The 2020 Vision Campaign. No discussion of it in the general election.

[lovuian]

79. can I add STUPID

Obama just seems to be doing all the Bush things

[pampango]

12. After all Obama has said about "one president at a time" and not contradicting Bush

until January 20, it shouldn't be a surprise that he doesn't publicly reverse foreign policy three days after he is elected. That doesn't mean he won't head in a different direction when he is in charge.

Plus Obama has to decide how to react when he is tested and publicly poked in the eye by the Putins (Medvedev is a Putin puppet) of the world. It may well be Obama's intention to cancel the missile defense shield in Poland, but to publicly declare this in response to a public Russian threat (rather than work it out diplomatically after January 20) might send the wrong signal about his resolve.

I won't worry about Obama's policy here until he has a chance to prove what it is.

[Gullvann]

13. I hope you are right.

It seems sensible.

[Vattel]

20. good point

[madrchsod]

19. WHAT ABOUT POLAND !!!!

ya right.....only the first of many bullshit articles.

[BearSquirrel2]

21. We don't have that much money to waste ...

The missle system does not work. Why bother deploying it.

They might as well get a Nike Missle system out of mothballs and install it in Poland.

[pjt7]

26. Obama seem much more pro war than we might have

been lead to beleive. How can you pick Rahm Emmanuel as you're chief of staff & not be?

W0W

[Sal Minella]

47. Wow indeed. I recommend you go hide under your bed for eight years. nt

Your "concern" would be more credible if your spelling didn't give you away.

[wordpix]

32. Yeah, since we're $10 TRILLION in the hole with infrastructure falling apart & outdated

[galileoreloaded]

27. First Rahm, now this (if it's true). Well, at least my intent was pure, and if

the outcome looks different than what I intended with my vote I can at least know I tried.

[stillcool]

44. what was it

you intended..at this point?

[Sal Minella]

48. Ah, let's all mourn the failure of an administration that won't even take office for two months yet.

[humbled_opinion]

31. Obama is much smarter

than this. Poland has a misunderstanding of Obama's intentions. Obama clearly stated that he would cut unproven systems. I think this Polish idiot is just trying to stir up some crap anyway.

[fascisthunter]

34. I Really Hope This Isn't True... I Will Wait to Hear What Obama Says

Once I hear it from his lips then I'll make a statement about this.

[Metta]

35. This seems so out of character for B since it's such a bone headed waste of money.

and it doesn't work.

[JohnnyCougar]

37. I hope he goes ahead with the missile shield.

And if not, he negotiates some sort of compromise out of it. It would be very unwise for Obama to be perceived as backing down from a foreign entity in his first foreign policy move. Very unwise.

Furthermore, making a pledge to back down from a missile shield right away automatically makes your negotiating leverage evaporate. Let's remember that Russia isn't exactly a harbinger of peace and freedom. They are not to be coddled with. We don't want to start a war, but they need to be negotiated with firmly.

[ingac70]

38. The missile shield...

is a waste of money that doesn't really work.

[JohnnyCougar]

41. That doesn't mean Obama shouldn't take a firm stance when negotiating.

If the Democrats want to build a permanent majority, it would be wise for them to act in every way possible to shed the weak on defense image they have. If Obama is perceived as caving in to foreign pressure in one of his first foreign policy challenges, it's going to be a short 4 years.

The missile shield doesn't have to continue to move forward, but saying you will back down immediately throws all your negotiating leverage down the drain.

[ingac70]

56. A firm stance on fantasy technology?

I elected a Democrat, not a retard Repuke.

[JohnnyCougar]

68. If it doesn't work, than Russia shouldn't care if it's there.

[ingac70]

77. We should not waste the money.

Just like that "star wars" bullshit, there are more important things to spend our tax dollars on.

[Gullvann]

39. I agree. Living in Norway I am very much conserned about Russia.

What about that compromise deal in Azerbaijan?

[L0oniX]

46. Back down??? WTF ..this was a bull shit scheme from Bush for the ...

military industrial corporations to make money off of.

[JohnnyCougar]

69. It doesn't matter what it is.

It matters how it's perceived.

[L0oniX]

45. He is still the lessor of 2 evils ...Kucinich ---> first choice.

Here comes the cold war again which is exactly what the military industrial corporations want. Blood money!

[Ichingcarpenter]

49. The shield means a lot of money that goes into the Polish Economy

Of course this would be the Polish position to promote this. I say wait
and see. Obama can not make a policy decision on this until Jan 20th
if he did it would be viewed as overreaching and out of bounds of constitutional
powers.

After January I will weigh in on this depending on his decision.

[pjt7]

58. I agree it's important to not jump

to any conclusions. Let's wait & hear from Obama.

However, both my eyes & ears are open & I hope Obama is more for peace than war guy & the industrial military complex doesn't own him.

We'll see, what happens.

[FarCenter]

60. Obama Offers Poland No Commitment on Missile Plan

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/washington/AP-Obama-Missile-Defense.html

[sakabatou]

62. delete

[Donnachaidh]

63. someone wake me up when the CHANGE happens.

:rofl: :rofl:

[Ichingcarpenter]

64. OK..... wake up! He said he didn't approve it ... now who is laughing at who?

[cali]

74. and the laugh is on you and all the fucking idiots slavering to bring down Obama

sorry, he didn't say any such thing and he's issued a statement on it. Don't choke on your apology.

[IndianaGreen]

65. The homophobe Lech Kaczynski can shove that missile up his ass!

The Left is opposed to Bush's missile system which is nothing more than a provocation against Russia and an escalation of the arms race.

[unkachuck]

78. "...the anti-missile shield project would go ahead,"

....I'm glad to see Obama is firmly committed to reversing buschco and neocon war-mongering policies....

[defendandprotect]

80. Whoa ...BAD ..Neo-Con ...PNAC militarization of skies .. $$$hole --