Obama Admin. Should Quash Anti-Missile Deployment
President Obama made an impressive speech in Prague, Czech Republic last week, the centerpiece being his call for a world free of nuclear armaments. Although this is not a particularly new sentiment by those involved in the international nuclear non-proliferation effort, even by former American presidents, it is noteworthy nonetheless that Obama is bringing attention to this urgent issue.
However, Obama's call for worldwide nuclear disarmament is at odds with his consent to the missile defense system in far away Eastern Europe, which was originally initiated by the Bush rule. This system calls for a missile tracking radar station in the Czech Republic and missile interceptors in Poland to supposedly stop Iranian missiles which might head that way. Iran has not been at war with any European country recently, so why is this a concern? Even if it is a valid concern, wouldn't this be more of a NATO obligation, which therefore would mean our nation shouldn't be paying most or all of the cost of it? As readers of "Commoner" well know, we don't think we should even be in NATO, anymore, as Congressman Ron Paul is leading the way on that issue.
Russia thinks this missile defense system would be more against them, possibly seeing it as complimenting a would-be offensive scenario, than against Iran, and we wouldn't be surprised if that was true, seeing that the Bush rule turned down Russia's proposal to cooperate with the idea by helping to place the system nearer to the alleged threat, where it would logically be more effective. By Obama's apparent willingness to go ahead with the system, the effectiveness of which would be negligible at best, considering that decoys could be developed to counteract any missile defense system, our nation is straining important relations with Russia, including discussions about nuclear weapons disarmament, and this would certainly be a detriment to making headway to a nuclear free world. Obama's contradictions in the Czech Republic are obvious, to say the least.
Copyright 2008 - 2009, Party of Commons TM
However, Obama's call for worldwide nuclear disarmament is at odds with his consent to the missile defense system in far away Eastern Europe, which was originally initiated by the Bush rule. This system calls for a missile tracking radar station in the Czech Republic and missile interceptors in Poland to supposedly stop Iranian missiles which might head that way. Iran has not been at war with any European country recently, so why is this a concern? Even if it is a valid concern, wouldn't this be more of a NATO obligation, which therefore would mean our nation shouldn't be paying most or all of the cost of it? As readers of "Commoner" well know, we don't think we should even be in NATO, anymore, as Congressman Ron Paul is leading the way on that issue.
Russia thinks this missile defense system would be more against them, possibly seeing it as complimenting a would-be offensive scenario, than against Iran, and we wouldn't be surprised if that was true, seeing that the Bush rule turned down Russia's proposal to cooperate with the idea by helping to place the system nearer to the alleged threat, where it would logically be more effective. By Obama's apparent willingness to go ahead with the system, the effectiveness of which would be negligible at best, considering that decoys could be developed to counteract any missile defense system, our nation is straining important relations with Russia, including discussions about nuclear weapons disarmament, and this would certainly be a detriment to making headway to a nuclear free world. Obama's contradictions in the Czech Republic are obvious, to say the least.
Copyright 2008 - 2009, Party of Commons TM
Comments