BillDemo
09-17-2009, 07:26 PM
A similar topic was posted earlier, but this article here contains analysis about Obama's reasons for scrapping the plans and also how his hope to get Moscow to help with stopping Iran going nuclear has already failed.... making his scrapping of the plans completely useless. ie: He has already failed in what he hoped to achieve with this.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6839310.ece
Barack Obama took a massive foreign policy gamble yesterday when he scrapped plans for a missile defence shield in Eastern Europe — a major concession to Russia.
The decision to shelve the Bush-era plan for a “Star Wars” defence system was denounced by Republicans as appeasing Moscow and caused dismay among former Soviet satellites.
The plan involved basing US interceptor missiles in Poland and radar in the Czech Republic to protect Europe from Iranian missiles. Russia, furious at the positioning of US military hardware on its border, denounced the system as a threat to its own defences and demanded that it be scrapped.
President Obama justified the change of plan by citing new intelligence that shows Iran’s long-range missile programme to be far less advanced than previously thought. Instead of being close to developing missiles capable of hitting London, Paris and New York, Tehran’s threat came only from short and medium-term missiles, he said. As a result he proposed to protect US allies in Southern Europe and the Middle East with an existing sea-based system that requires no permanent land bases.
The move signals how crucial Mr Obama believes Russia is to his wider agenda. He desperately needs Moscow’s co-operation in confronting Iran’s nuclear ambitions — central to achieving peace in the Middle East as a whole — and in negotiating a new nuclear arms reduction treaty.
John McCain, Mr Obama’s Republican opponent in last year’s presidential race, denounced the decision as “seriously misguided”. He said: “This decision calls into question the security and diplomatic commitments the United States has made to Poland and the Czech Republic. It has the potential to undermine perceived American leadership in Eastern Europe . . . at a time when Eastern European nations are increasingly wary of renewed Russian adventurism.”
John Bolton, Mr Bush’s hardline UN ambassador, called the move “pre-emptive surrender to the Russians and the Iranians”. He said that if intelligence on Iran’s long-range missile capability was wrong then the decision would leave Europe vulnerable. “You cannot switch missile defence back on like a light switch,” he said.
Mr Obama’s decision was seen as a significant victory in Moscow. It was also interpreted as a way of strengthening the standing of President Medvedev in Russia. The White House sees Mr Medvedev as more moderate and helpful than Vladimir Putin, who has hinted of a presidential comeback.
President Medvedev, who will meet Mr Obama at the UN General Assembly in New York next week and at the G20 summit in Pittsburgh, described Mr Obama’s decision as a responsible move and suggested that it would help negotiations on a nuclear arms reduction agreement.
Any hopes that Mr Obama had had that the decision would garner Russian co-operation on Iran were quickly dashed, however. Sergei Lavrov, the Foreign Minister, said that any move to impose new sanctions on Iran would be a “serious mistake”.
Gordon Brown said that he strongly supported Mr Obama’s decision and hoped that it would help in getting an arms reduction treaty. Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the Nato Secretary-General, welcomed the decision as a step to improving relations with both Russia and Iran. Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor, said that it was “a hopeful signal to overcome the difficulties with Russia concerning a common strategy for fighting the threat posed by Iran”. She added: “I hope we will now manage to speak with Iran together, and if that is not successful, to implement sanctions.”
Mr Obama’s plan calls for a phased approach to missile defence, with constantly upgraded versions of the proven Aegis/Standard SM3 interceptor.
Critics say that the new system is risky because it only intercepts missiles in the final stage of flight; the Bush-era programme would have targeted weapons much earlier.
Remember, during the 2008 campaign, the right wing was telling us that Obama would weaken US defence systems if elected?..... Remember how they told us Obama favored appeasement? .....Remember how we didn't believe them?....X_X
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6839310.ece
Barack Obama took a massive foreign policy gamble yesterday when he scrapped plans for a missile defence shield in Eastern Europe — a major concession to Russia.
The decision to shelve the Bush-era plan for a “Star Wars” defence system was denounced by Republicans as appeasing Moscow and caused dismay among former Soviet satellites.
The plan involved basing US interceptor missiles in Poland and radar in the Czech Republic to protect Europe from Iranian missiles. Russia, furious at the positioning of US military hardware on its border, denounced the system as a threat to its own defences and demanded that it be scrapped.
President Obama justified the change of plan by citing new intelligence that shows Iran’s long-range missile programme to be far less advanced than previously thought. Instead of being close to developing missiles capable of hitting London, Paris and New York, Tehran’s threat came only from short and medium-term missiles, he said. As a result he proposed to protect US allies in Southern Europe and the Middle East with an existing sea-based system that requires no permanent land bases.
The move signals how crucial Mr Obama believes Russia is to his wider agenda. He desperately needs Moscow’s co-operation in confronting Iran’s nuclear ambitions — central to achieving peace in the Middle East as a whole — and in negotiating a new nuclear arms reduction treaty.
John McCain, Mr Obama’s Republican opponent in last year’s presidential race, denounced the decision as “seriously misguided”. He said: “This decision calls into question the security and diplomatic commitments the United States has made to Poland and the Czech Republic. It has the potential to undermine perceived American leadership in Eastern Europe . . . at a time when Eastern European nations are increasingly wary of renewed Russian adventurism.”
John Bolton, Mr Bush’s hardline UN ambassador, called the move “pre-emptive surrender to the Russians and the Iranians”. He said that if intelligence on Iran’s long-range missile capability was wrong then the decision would leave Europe vulnerable. “You cannot switch missile defence back on like a light switch,” he said.
Mr Obama’s decision was seen as a significant victory in Moscow. It was also interpreted as a way of strengthening the standing of President Medvedev in Russia. The White House sees Mr Medvedev as more moderate and helpful than Vladimir Putin, who has hinted of a presidential comeback.
President Medvedev, who will meet Mr Obama at the UN General Assembly in New York next week and at the G20 summit in Pittsburgh, described Mr Obama’s decision as a responsible move and suggested that it would help negotiations on a nuclear arms reduction agreement.
Any hopes that Mr Obama had had that the decision would garner Russian co-operation on Iran were quickly dashed, however. Sergei Lavrov, the Foreign Minister, said that any move to impose new sanctions on Iran would be a “serious mistake”.
Gordon Brown said that he strongly supported Mr Obama’s decision and hoped that it would help in getting an arms reduction treaty. Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the Nato Secretary-General, welcomed the decision as a step to improving relations with both Russia and Iran. Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor, said that it was “a hopeful signal to overcome the difficulties with Russia concerning a common strategy for fighting the threat posed by Iran”. She added: “I hope we will now manage to speak with Iran together, and if that is not successful, to implement sanctions.”
Mr Obama’s plan calls for a phased approach to missile defence, with constantly upgraded versions of the proven Aegis/Standard SM3 interceptor.
Critics say that the new system is risky because it only intercepts missiles in the final stage of flight; the Bush-era programme would have targeted weapons much earlier.
Remember, during the 2008 campaign, the right wing was telling us that Obama would weaken US defence systems if elected?..... Remember how they told us Obama favored appeasement? .....Remember how we didn't believe them?....X_X