Bruce Gagon: Reflections on the Obama trip to Europe

[bigtree]

A friend wrote this morning, "The headline should read - Obama talks peace and plans for war."

At the 60th anniversary NATO celebrations President Obama begged for more troops in Afghanistan from alliance member nations. They urged him forward but few countries offered help.
Then in Prague Obama called for the world to get rid of its nuclear weapons. Very commendable.
The Washington Post reported this morning that, "For those worried about a unilateral American disarmament, Obama promised that the country would keep enough nuclear weapons to defend itself and its allies as long as the weapons existed in other nations....He also reiterated his pledge to install a missile defense system in Eastern Europe as long as Iran poses a possible nuclear threat to the region."
Iran? We know Iran is no threat and scientists have long been telling us that Star Wars bases in Poland and the Czech Republic would not be capable of intercepting missiles from Iran....but they could intercept missiles from Russia.......

So the crucial message was delivered.....Star Wars technology will still likely be developed and put into Poland and the Czech Republic, using Iran as the excuse to cover larger US ambitions of surrounding Russia with the technology.

Here is the deal....

read more: http://www.opednews.com/articles/REFLECTIONS-ON-THE-OBAMA-T-by-Bruce-K-Gagnon-090405-22.html

Bruce Gagnon is the Coordinator of the Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space. (http://www.space4peace.org)

[ClarkUSA]

1. The author of this article hasn't a clue as to the foreign policy chess game Pres. Obama is playing.

1. Russia doesn't want the missile program.

2. The U.S. doesn't want Iran to continue with its nuclear program.

3. President Obama is using the threat of a missile program to nudge Russia to help deter Iran.

[bigtree]

2. the author

Has been waging a decades-long fight against the proliferation of space by the U.S. military. The differences here may be between your confidence in the president and his holdover Pentagon leadership and the author's vigilant distrust of their motives (based on the facts of their actions and statements). You've made a presumptuous defense, supposing the president is insincere in his statements. I think that's rather strained.

[ClarkUSA]

4. I assure you that the Russians know exactly what Pres. Obama is doing, even if the author does not..

Pres. Obama is giving Russia a real choice, the same choice he gave them when he sent that letter to the Russian President
after his inauguration: help us convince Iran to stop its nuclear program or we may well have to go ahead with the missile
program.

[bigtree]

5. so we'll just look at the upcoming appropriations as a bluff

I think this is a ridiculous theory, and a ridiculous plan, if it's actually a policy.

[ClarkUSA]

6. What upcoming appropriations? Links, sources? And WTH is bluffing?

[bigtree]

7. If it's not a bluff, then 'missile defense' is certain to advance in some form of legislation

If it is one, then appropriations will be a waste, but I'd expect someone in Congress to take the president at his word and put money in to make the program 'work' and satisfy his only real objection.

Face it, Obama is keeping 'missile defense' alive in some form, because he's never committed to completely rule it out. All of that justified by a non-existent threat from Iran. Stupid policy.

[ClarkUSA]

8. Seems your talk of "upcoming appropriations" was a bluff. lol!

And what factual evidence do you have that there's "a non-existent threat from Iran"? Hmm? Links, sources?

Now stop blowing anti-Obama hot air and read over my previous explanations, which seems to have escaped
your comphrehension. I repeat: President Obama is offering Russia, the top key player with Iran, a real choice.
Russia along with other G20 nations will work together with President Obama to create a world fuel bank which will
preclude Iran's oft-stated "need" to centrifuge plutonium.

[bigtree]

9. That's been the case in almost every appropriations budget

Interesting to see you express so much faith in the veracity of the Russians, and faith in the military industry warriors in the Pentagon to abandon their missile defense boondoggle.

I'll repeat: Obama hasn't cited any reason to end the missile defense program (appropriations) other than that he wants a 'workable' system. That means more money into the kitty to keep it afloat.

Let me know how it all shakes out. I'll be sure to highlight the appropriations.

[ClarkUSA]

10. Uh huh. lol!

[bigtree]

11. just watch the appropriations

Don't expect missile defense to end with Obama. As Mr. Gagon pointed out, he's still busy assuring Poland that he won't abandon the planned deployment in their country.

By the way, there's no more evidence that any of the plan that you outlined is anywhere near agreement, much less any funding or enactment, so it's a bit arrogant to dismiss my predictions out of hand, especially considering the history of the program and the actors still in place at the Pentagon.

[bigtree]

3. .

[ClarkUSA]

12. Obama's Prague speech causes ripples overseas: Kazakhstan, Iran support the International Fuel Bank

It looks as if my confidence has been confirmed:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8326784&mesg_id=8326784

[bigtree]

13. the proposal may well pan out

. . . but I still maintain that even such an agreement would not end the official animosity toward Iran which is used to justify the expansion of the missile defense regime. To take the word of the Iranian president as gospel is enough of a stretch, but to project into the future that the U.S. is going to abandon their antagonistic posture toward Iran and scrap their 'missile shield' plans for the Czechs and the Poles ignores the political momentum and the defiant statement Gates made yesterday in defense of the European program.


Gates: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123904207376593845.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

" We will restructure the program to focus on the rogue state and theater missile threat . . . we will continue to robustly fund continued research and development to improve the capability we already have to defend against long-range rogue missile threats."


from the WSJ: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123890987232590185.html

During Mr. Obama's speech, he drew applause from some in the crowd when he vowed to pursue the missile shield as long as Iran pursued its nuclear ambitions. Others cheered when he suggested -- as he has in the past -- that he could drop the effort if Iran is deemed no longer a threat.

Asked by reporters about whether Mr. Obama was softening the pledges made by Mr. Bush supporting the program, Czech Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek replied testily, "President Obama spoke very clearly, he said the missile-defense project is not finished."

[ClarkUSA]

14. One step at a time...

I believe the U.S. and Russia will work together well; Iran is already showing signs of being reasonable. I'm sure there have
been behind-the-scenes talks between Iran and Russia.

I am confident that President Obama will get what he wants because ultimately it's win-win for Russia, too. Also, Iran realizes
it has little choice but to grin and bear it, because it has no other choice if it wants to be a player -- and not a pariah -- on
the world stage.