The US withdrew from the thirty year old Anti Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002. After six years of debate, planning, diplomacy and pressurising, the US has secured agreements in the last two weeks to put in place radar and anti-missile shields in the Czech Republic and Poland.
The deal with the governments has involved payments and incentives. There's been bitter opposition from the public in both countries and in Germany.



The Russian government has understandably vociferously opposed the Shield. Nobody seems to believe the US's story that the shield is directed at Iran's (embryonic) nuclear capacities. The Russians say it is aimed at them. However the way in which the shield affects Russia may be economically and in terms of political pressure as much as militarily. The technical efficacy of the shield is dubious.

Alexander Khramchikhin for RIA Novosti (24.4.07) wrote this last year:

Quote :

Some experts believe that the radar that the Americans are planning to deploy in the Czech Republic is much more dangerous for Russia than the GBIs in Poland. It will cover the country's territory up to the Urals. Its mission is to detect missile launches and feed this information to the anti-missile systems. However, as I have explained above, such systems do not actually exist.

To sum up, the threat posed by the American ABM system to be deployed in eastern Europe is imaginary. The only bizarre point is thate that Washington does not understand this, and in this context its desire to seek protection against Iran seems very strange.

There are five explanations of why the United States wants to have an ABM system in eastern Europe, and none are mutually exclusive:
the threat of Iranian ICBMs to the United States is even more far-fetched. Up to this day, the U.S., Russia, and China have been the only countries capable of building their own ICBMs. Iran cannot even cope with producing medium-range missiles. Its technological level will not allow it to build nuclear-tipped ICBMs even in the distant future. Even if we assume that Iran obtains such missiles somehow, why would it wish to attack the United States? For all the peculiarities of the Iranian regime, there are no grounds to think that it consists of suicidal fanatics. It is perfectly obvious that a single strike against the United States would cause, quite legally, a massive retaliation that would completely destroy Iran. There are no goals for which the Iranian leaders would pay such a price. It is hard to believ
1. After 9/11, American leaders and society as a whole became so paranoid that they want to counter even mythical threats to national security.

2. The Pentagon's budget has become so big that to keep it at this level or make it even bigger, the Defense Department and the military-industrial complex are presenting mythical threats as real, demonstrating at the same time their concern for the security of the U.S. taxpayer.

3. U.S. military and political leaders believe that in the (albeit remote) future, they will develop their ABM system to the level where it would pose a threat to the Russian strategic nuclear forces; now it is important to gain a foothold by deploying useless GBIs.

4. Washington wants to repeat its successful strategy of the 1980s, when it compelled Moscow to spend huge sums of money to counter a mythical threat. Almost a quarter-century has passed since the United States first announced Star Wars, but for all of its gigantic economic, technological and scientific potential, America has managed to produce almost nothing of what it announced then. It was very easy to understand then that the supposed ABM program was a pipe dream, but the intellectual level of the Soviet elite had dropped so much by that point that it was simply unable to adequately assess the situation. Nobody in America was ever going to make any combat lasers, but Moscow feverishly rushed to parry the threat just to realize shortly afterward that it could not cope with it either economically or technologically.

Under Mikhail Gorbachev, Russia began "perestroika and acceleration," and only after we dropped out of the race from exhaustion did we go for "the new thinking," with the end that we all know. Today, Washington may well try to at least exhaust Russia with another arms race, if not cause its complete disintegration in the wake of the Soviet collapse. At the same time, the U.S. will unite the rapidly decaying NATO alliance and save its combat potential in the face of "the new threat from the East."

5. The final possibility is that America does not care much about either Russia or Iran. Rather, it knows that NATO has no future and wants to create a new security system that would be smaller but more coherent. The system should involve those countries that are truly loyal to Washington. The deployment of ABM components is a loyalty test.

As I have already said, one explanation does not rule out another. I am almost sure that the truth is a combination of several, if not all versions. This is why Moscow is on the horns of a dilemma: should it rush to beef up its armed forces, thinking about the third explanation, or should it pretend that nothing is happening for fear of being trapped by the fourth?

Indeed, McCain has fully endorsed it, and his campaign has more generally stated that he sees “effective missile defenses” as critical not only to deal with states such as Iran but also to “hedge against potential threats from possible strategic competitors like Russia and China.”

http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20070425/64384966.html

Several of today's newspapers headlined this story framed as a Russian threat to Poland (LOL), quoting a General who pointed out that the US move would mean that Poland would become a target.

In order to get Poland to sign, the US threatened to do a deal with Lithuania and withdraw from Poland -

http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2008_07-08/Poland

Anti Ballistic Missile Shields are recognised as a part of first nuclear strike capacities, and to lead to an acceleration in the nuclear arms race. Whilst it is difficult to make sense of the US actions, their broad strategy of using military dominance to ensure economic benefit is evident.



http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2008_06/AntiMissile

What is Bill Clinton doing in the front of that mob.

Is that not Dick Cheney right behind his shoulder.

youngdan wrote:

Is that not Dick Cheney right behind his shoulder.

I *heart* youngdan

Though I see Naomi klein over there on the right (first time for everything) screaming her head off (as usual) in blue.

youngdan wrote:

What is Bill Clinton doing in the front of that mob.

Its good of you to take it so well, youngdan. You're paying taxes to pay 6 billion for this thing and it doesn't even work.

No escape after the elections, either...

Quote :

Neither presumptive presidential candidate, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) or Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), has said he would, if elected, discontinue the proposed European deployment. Indeed, McCain has fully endorsed it, and his campaign has more generally stated that he sees “effective missile defenses” as critical not only to deal with states such as Iran but also to “hedge against potential threats from possible strategic competitors like Russia and China.”

Imagine getting a contract worth 6 billion to build something that everyone knows does not work.

Armadinijad right behind Cheney as well. Sarkozy is there too but he is so small he is hidden. His wife is the one partly hidden by Clinton and he is holding her right hand. What a beautifull couple

youngdan wrote:

Armadinijad right behind Cheney as well. Sarkozy is there too but he is so small he is hidden. His wife is the one partly hidden by Clinton and he is holding her right hand. What a beautifull couple

Is that you at the back with the NWO banner, youngdan?

Not at all.

I am there boasting about my college days.

I am the one holding the sign immediatly to the left and down from the one that says World without wars is possible.

I'm the one just out of shot to the right of Naomi, poking her with the pointed end of the banner rod I stole from some weak soy fed toddlers.

cookiemonster wrote:

I'm the one just out of shot to the right of Naomi, poking her with the pointed end of the banner rod I stole from some weak soy fed toddlers.

Didn't we think that Libertas was against the militarisation of Europe ?

cactus flower wrote:

cookiemonster wrote:

I'm the one just out of shot to the right of Naomi, poking her with the pointed end of the banner rod I stole from some weak soy fed toddlers.

Didn't we think that Libertas was against the militarisation of Europe ?

A pointed stick isn't militarisation.

And I have no idea what "we" thought or why "we" thought it.

cookiemonster wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

cookiemonster wrote:

I'm the one just out of shot to the right of Naomi, poking her with the pointed end of the banner rod I stole from some weak soy fed toddlers.

Didn't we think that Libertas was against the militarisation of Europe ?

A pointed stick isn't militarisation.

And I have no idea what "we" thought or why "we" thought it.

So what is Libertas's policy on NATO and on US bases in Europe ?

That is an origional Bush Buster poster I still have from the old days. My best year was 27 busted.

cactus flower wrote:

cookiemonster wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

cookiemonster wrote:

I'm the one just out of shot to the right of Naomi, poking her with the pointed end of the banner rod I stole from some weak soy fed toddlers.

Didn't we think that Libertas was against the militarisation of Europe ?

A pointed stick isn't militarisation.

And I have no idea what "we" thought or why "we" thought it.

So what is Libertas's policy on NATO and on US bases in Europe ?

Well we want a weak Europe subservient to a powerful a militarly dominant US, don't we, so I assume we would want the entire EU to be a US base.

American bases being the key issue, surely cactus? I mean surely any base owned by a NATO member is a NATO base and something like 19 of the 27 member states of the Community are also members of NATO.

cookiemonster wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

cookiemonster wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

cookiemonster wrote:

I'm the one just out of shot to the right of Naomi, poking her with the pointed end of the banner rod I stole from some weak soy fed toddlers.

Didn't we think that Libertas was against the militarisation of Europe ?

A pointed stick isn't militarisation.

And I have no idea what "we" thought or why "we" thought it.

So what is Libertas's policy on NATO and on US bases in Europe ?

Well we want a weak Europe subservient to a powerful a militarly dominant US, don't we, so I assume we would want the entire EU to be a US base.

Does that mean you don't have one, or you don't know ?

cactus flower wrote:

cookiemonster wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

cookiemonster wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

cookiemonster wrote:

I'm the one just out of shot to the right of Naomi, poking her with the pointed end of the banner rod I stole from some weak soy fed toddlers.

Didn't we think that Libertas was against the militarisation of Europe ?

A pointed stick isn't militarisation.

And I have no idea what "we" thought or why "we" thought it.

So what is Libertas's policy on NATO and on US bases in Europe ?

Well we want a weak Europe subservient to a powerful a militarly dominant US, don't we, so I assume we would want the entire EU to be a US base.

Does that mean you don't have one, or you don't know ?

Or there is one, I do know but I don't want to tell you?

Who knows.

And yes, you can settle on either one of your own suggestions.

cookiemonster wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

cookiemonster wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

cookiemonster wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

cookiemonster wrote:

I'm the one just out of shot to the right of Naomi, poking her with the pointed end of the banner rod I stole from some weak soy fed toddlers.

Didn't we think that Libertas was against the militarisation of Europe ?

A pointed stick isn't militarisation.

And I have no idea what "we" thought or why "we" thought it.

So what is Libertas's policy on NATO and on US bases in Europe ?

Well we want a weak Europe subservient to a powerful a militarly dominant US, don't we, so I assume we would want the entire EU to be a US base.

Does that mean you don't have one, or you don't know ?

Or there is one, I do know but I don't want to tell you?

Who knows.

And yes, you can settle on either one of your own suggestions.

No one was able to extract an answer from you on this thread either Cookie.

http://www.politics.ie/viewtopic.php?f=172&t=34383&start=0&st=0&sk=t&sd=a

The Libertas website is not helpful, but this was interesting:

Quote :

European Leaders Must Support Georgia Against Kremlin Aggression
Written by Libertas
Friday, 08 August 2008
Reacting to news that the Kremlin's heavy armour, infantry and air forces had invaded the independent and democratic European country of Georgia, Libertas chairman Declan Ganley this afternoon called on EU leaders to unite and show strong an unequivocal support for Georgia's democratically-elected government.
Ganley went on to say,
"The appropriate response for the European Union is to call for the Kremlin to immediately withdraw its forces from Georgia – an independent European country that will hopefully one day join the Union".

cactus flower wrote:

No one was able to extract an answer from you on this thread either Cookie.

http://www.politics.ie/viewtopic.php?f=172&t=34383&start=0&st=0&sk=t&sd=a

Funny, that doesn't look like a thread on NATO or US bases in Europe to me.

It starts:

seabhcan

Does Libertas support Irish neutrality?

CookieMonster

Why not ask them?

seabhcan

I've tried that before. They're not big on replies.

by Vega1447

I don't mind waiting - it will be good.

It will finally settle my Indymedia-type notions that maybe Libertas is a front organisation for
\begin{euphemism}
Atlanticist businessmen anxious to promote the interests of their US military patrons
\end{euphemism}

My eyes will be opened to the evident evils of Old Europe and the necessity of the EU converting to a Free trade area and in the fullness of time joining NAFTA.
I'll read the collected speeches of http://www.benadorassociates.com/perle.php while I wait.

The missiles to be based in Poland are anti-missile missiles. So they aren't aimed at anybody. They will be programmed to destroy missiles, launched from anywhere this side of the planet at the US.

How effective the shield will be, who knows? The test will be when they start destroying missiles during a strike from Iran, Syria, Russia, wherever. By then it won't matter because the US missiles will be in the air too.

ABMs already exist. For example the US Patriot missile used to shoot down other missiles. They were used in Saudi Arabia and Israel during Gulf War 1. Germany and Poland have also bought them. Patriots can't be used against ICBMs though. The US had an ABM system during the Cold War which is now obselete, Russia's is still active but is old and outdated. India, Israel and China are developing their own ABM systems, without all the manufactured hullabaloo.

Who can believe this absolute drivle. Iran does not have icbm's capable of reaching the US. They do not have a nuclear bomb and they sure as hell dont have a bomb that can be afixed to a missile. Russian missiles fly over the NORTH pole not over Poland.

This is balderdash and anyone that believes it is as dumb as a possum. Why would Iran put a bomb on a missile when they can sail it into Boston Harbour