Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Obama to Russia: stop Iranian nuclear weapon and US will scrap missile defence

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 08:53 AM
link   
I think this is quite a big story from Times Online.


President Obama today offered to scrap plans for a missile defence shield in Eastern Europe if Russia helped to stop Iran developing a nuclear bomb.


Mr Obama went on to say in his speech:


"I know Russia opposes the planned configuration for missile defence in Europe....I have made it clear that this system is directed at preventing a potential attack from Iran and has nothing to do with Russia," Mr Obama said in a speech to students graduating from Moscow's New Economic School.

"I want us to work together on a missile defence architecture that makes us all safer. But if the threat from Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile programmes is eliminated, the driving force for missile defence in Europe will be eliminated. That is in our mutual interest."


It does seem from the Times' article that there is a distinct effort by the Obama administration to undo the results of the 'Bush' years, which saw a definite thawing in US-Russian realtions.


Earlier, Mr Obama met Vladimir Putin for the first time and praised his "extraordinary work" as president and prime minister. The tone of the meeting at Mr Putin's country residence was in stark contrast to Mr Obama's criticism of him last week as a man with "one foot in the old ways of doing business".


But don't worry about Obama looking like he's pandering to Putin, the new stance is reciprocated


Over a Russian breakfast of smoked Beluga and tea from a samovar, served up by waiters in folk costumes, Mr Putin told his guest: "We associate your name with the hopes of developing our relations."


I don't really mind how it comes about, but if they manage to disarm Iran and cancel the missle defence system (avoiding another arms race) then it has to be a possitive thing.




posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 04:02 PM
link   
Why should the US taxpayers pay to defend Europe from an extremely remote threat of a nuclear attack from Iran ?



posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Schaden
Why should the US taxpayers pay to defend Europe from an extremely remote threat of a nuclear attack from Iran ?


This is something that bewilders me also.

Speaking of Iran and Russia - I don't think Russia is ready to trust America yet and they have SCO obligations, they also possess defence contracts with Iran, not to mention they have came to be a legit ally of Iran, and did I mention their oil? No dice. Israel can find another vulnerable pawn to help them attack Iran.



posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 04:52 PM
link   
I honestly think that this missile defense shield is nothing more than a smoke screen for something more devious. The Bush-era government were notorious double talkers, you can't take nothing at face value.


I believe that "shield" is nothing more than a fail safe device for TPTB in Europe. If Russia get's froggy, they can be reminded that they have dozens of short, medium, and long range missiles pointed at them. I mean a short and long range missile has to be cheaper than the big daddy ICBM..i think, am i wrong?

The simple fact that Obama is willing to dissemble that shield just goes to show how absurd the idea was in the first place.

Note to ATSers: Is there any way to find out who the Bush gave that missile shield defense contract too? Some company or corporation has to actually construct the junk and i'll bet my dime bag (kush) that they are connected to Bush.



posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Schaden
Why should the US taxpayers pay to defend Europe from an extremely remote threat of a nuclear attack from Iran ?


The missle defence will be 'based' in Europe to stop missles going over the Atlantic to the US. It's not designed to protect Europe as such.

If a missle was launched from Iran, there would be only one shot at it if the anti-missle missle was launched from US soil.

To cenpuppie, I believe you're right, if it was of such importance he wouldn't take that stance.





new topics

top topics
 
0

log in

join