Poles, Czechs Don't Like Our Missiles

We don't need no steenkin' missile defenses! That's the message emanating from Eastern Europe.

The proposed "anti-Iranian" missile systems aren't popular in Poland and the Czech Republic, where they are supposed to be installed.

From CNN:

The Czech prime minister canceled a vote to allow the United States to put a key part of its planned missile defense system in the Central European country, the government announced late Tuesday.

Prime Minister Miroslav Topolanek said he called off the vote for fear his government would lose but added he could still put the two treaties up for a vote in parliament at a later date.

Adds Reuters:

The Czech government temporarily withdrew treaties on hosting a U.S. defense radar from a parliament ratification process on Tuesday in the face of an opposition threat to vote them down.

The decision highlighted the center-right government's weakness in parliament and may delay the ratification for months or even put it on ice for an unpredictable period.

Meanwhile, the Poles don't much want them either, by a vote of 53-22:

Fifty-three percent of the Polish respondents to a recent CBOS survey are against plans to install elements of a U.S. anti-missile shield in Poland.

Twenty-two percent of the polled support the idea, Polish news agency PAP reported on Monday, quoting the survey.

And John Bolton is even grumpier than usual, complaining about President Obama's offer to reconsider the deployment of the missile defense systems if Russia helps eliminate Iran's nukes. Says Bolton:

The administration's biggest mistake to date was suggesting that U.S. missile-defense sites in Poland and the Czech Republic might go unbuilt if Russia could deliver an Iran without nuclear weapons. ... It could well be that the United States gives up the Polish and Czech missile sites while Russia not only doesn't deliver a nuclear-free Iran but doesn't even try very hard.

But Carl Levin doesn't agree:

Senator Carl Levin said simply beginning serious discussions with Russia about missile cooperation would send a powerful signal to Iran and could help repair strained U.S.-Russian relations.

"We have a new opportunity to seek a cooperative approach with Russia on missile defense and we should seize it," Levin told a conference on missile defense. "The upside potential of such an effort is huge -- a geopolitical game changer."

I'll take Levin over Bolton.

Comments (12)

1. Gotta keep in mind the growing gap between "the people" in some of these countries and their respective governments.

   Posted by schnellerheinz at 03/23/2009 @ 12:53pm

2. This has the ability to ease tensions with Russia and at the same time put pressure on Iran. Shouldn't everyone be cheer leading this?

   Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/23/2009 @ 1:22pm

3. Are we going to have our local Republicans come on and say something in the order of "We aren't against diplomacy, as long as the person we are negotiating with is willing to give us everything we want and doesn't ask anything of us."

   Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/23/2009 @ 1:23pm

4. Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/23/2009 @ 1:23pm

   Actually, going to be interesting to see them come here and tell us that our ALLIES must be willing to give us everything we want....aka the Czech Republic and Poland!

   Posted by Mask at 03/23/2009 @ 2:16pm

5. Wishful thinking, here is reality!

   Poland said on Sunday it hoped the new U.S. administration would not abandon plans to station a missile defence system on its territory.

   President Barack Obama's administration is reviewing U.S. security policy, including the missile shield plan. This has prompted speculation he might shelve a project that has angered Moscow, with which Washington wants to mend ties.

   Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski said Poland had taken "something of a political risk" in signing an agreement with the Bush administration to host the system.

   "When we started discussing this with the United States, the U.S. assured us they would persuade the Russians that it was purely defensive and it would be a non-controversial decision," he told the annual Brussels Forum conference.

   "We signed with the old administration; we patiently wait for the new administration, and we hope we don't regret our trust in the United States," he said, adding that Russia had continued to threaten to deploy missiles near Poland if the shield were deployed.

   Posted by comancheamerican at 03/23/2009 @ 3:08pm

6. >>>The administration's biggest mistake to date was suggesting that U.S. missile-defense sites in Poland and the Czech Republic might go unbuilt if Russia could deliver an Iran without nuclear weapons.<<<

   I cringe every time I hear Bolton speak - he is the epitome of cowboy diplomacy gone wild, and NO ONE should ever listen to this guy and his looney ideas ever again!

   He lied about WMD in Iraq, misrepresented the conflict in Georgia, and now he is trying to defend an indefensible missle defense system lobbied for by Lockeed that pretends Iran is interested in launching missles toward Eastern Europe.

   The guy is a serious WHACKO!

   Time to move on!

   Posted by Metteyya at 03/23/2009 @ 7:04pm

7. These missile defense systems are untested and will not work. They are a waste of money and nothing but corporate welfare. Poland would be better off with tank traps. I also read in today's paper that security contractors are lined up to go into Afghanistan. More corporate welfare! This administration will screw up in Afghanistan, just like the Bush Administration did in Iraq.

   Posted by P. J. Casey at 03/23/2009 @ 10:37pm

8. Oh, Well!!

   Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 03/24/2009 @ 12:48pm

9. Senator Levin thinks we can send a powerful signal to Iran.

   We probably already have, since January 20.

   Iran will try to do what Iran intends to do, which is build a nuclear weapon.

   Russia can not deliver a nuclear-free Iran and probably does not want to.

   I have seen bloggers on this site who do not want a nuclear-free Iran and think that Iran should have nuclear weapons.

   It would appear the only person right now who can deliver a nuclear free Iran is Bibi Netanyahu. His method of "delivery", if it becomes necessary and it happens, will be one that libs oppose.

   If it becomes necessary and it happens, lib opposition and screaming and hissy fits will tell you it was the right thing to do.

   Posted by sjchermak at 03/24/2009 @ 1:56pm

10. Posted by sjchermak at 03/24/2009 @ 1:56pm

    Again, why Netanyahu, why didn't DUBYA "do something" about Iran?

    Oh, that's right...he was.

    He was trying to open up back-door channels to them....you know "talking to the enemy!!!!"

    Posted by Mask at 03/24/2009 @ 2:31pm

11. Mask,

    As you know, that National Intelligence Estimate came out last year or the year before saying that Iran is not attempting to develop a nuclear weapon. (a quick summary in my own words of what the gist of it was)

    Most all people realize that is nonsense, that Iran is working to develop a nuclear weapon, while claiming they are not, and there are bloggers on this site that say Iran should have a nuclear weapon.

    Most all people realize that it would be just a short step from the development of nuclear capability for generating electricity to having the ability to produce a nuke.

    But you know, as well as I do, that with a NIE out there saying that Iran is not developing a weapon, and with libs having re-invented history to try and claim everybody KNEW that Saddam had no WMD and President Bush lied about that - that if President Bush had gone ahead and done something to prevent the successful development of an Iranian nuke through military action - that.....

    Dennis Kucinich would have set a new world record for a sprint to Capitol Hill to put forth articles of impeachment in Congress. Libs would have gone beserk beyond belief.

    The political climate probably influenced President Bush and has served to make our country more hesitant to take forceful action when necessary. Which is what libs want because you are always supposed to go the extra mile for peace (say the libs), as Neville Chamberlain did in the 1930's.

    But Bibi Netanyahu does not have to deal with Dennis Kucinich, or The Nation, or The Progressive, or MoveOn.org, or The New York Times, or CBS,NBC, etc, or Chris Matthews, or John F. Kerry, or Cindy Sheehan, etc.

    He just has the responsiblity to insure his country's survival, which he will do.

    Posted by sjchermak at 03/24/2009 @ 3:14pm

12. Posted by sjchermak at 03/24/2009 @ 1:56pm

    Whether you were thinking of me or not, I just to make my position clear. I generally oppose nuclear proliferation and am in favor of nuclear disarmament, led by the biggest holders of nuclear weapons in the world. However, as much as I despise the government of Iran, I believe any state has the right to nuclear weapons and that it is certainly understandable that Iran - from the mullahs to the monarchists - would want them, given that they are surrounded by nations with nukes (Israel, Russia, Pakistan and the U.S. Navy) and the very different treatment by the U.S. of non-nuclear Iraq and nuclear North Korea.

    So, would I prefer that Iran not develop nukes? Yes. But do I oppose their efforts to do so? No.

    Posted by cka2nd at 03/25/2009 @ 10:24am