Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.

Russia May Withdraw from Nuclear Treaty with US

by Steven D Thu Feb 15th, 2007 at 03:29:54 PM EST

A Russian general today claimed that Russia may withdraw from a nuclear weapons treaty with the United States that was signed during the second term of the Reagan presidency, in response to the President Bush's announced plans to deploy missile defense systems in Poland and the Czech Republic, according to this Associated Press report:

Gen. Yuri Baluyevsky, chief of the military's General Staff, said Russia could pull out of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, negotiated between Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev and President Reagan in 1987.

The decision would depend, he said, on whether the U.S. completed plans to deploy components of a missile defense systems in Poland and the Czech Republic - plans that have drawn sharp criticism from President Vladimir Putin.

(cont.)


For those of you (like me) who are unfamiliar with the terms of the INF treaty (as it is known) here's a brief review of its relevant provisions:

The INF Treaty eliminated all nuclear-armed ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles with ranges between 500 and 5,500 kilometers (about 300 to 3400 miles) and their infrastructure. The INF Treaty is the first nuclear arms control agreement to actually reduce nuclear arms, rather than establish ceilings that could not be exceeded. Altogether it resulted in the elimination by May 1991 of 846 longer-and shorter-range U.S. INF missile systems and 1846 Soviet INF missile systems, including the modernized U.S. Pershing II and Soviet SS-20 missiles.

Let me repeat that bolded phrase excerpted  from the Federation of American Scientists web page on this topic: "The INF Treaty is the first nuclear arms control agreement to actually reduce nuclear arms..." This was one of the signal accomplishments of President Reagan and the Soviet Union's leader, Michael Gorbachev.  A treaty that not only limited a class of nuclear weapons, but actually reduced the number of such weapons that each country had in its respective arsenal.  That a Russian general has now publicly stated that Russia may withdraw from this treaty (presumably with the approval of President Putin) is a major shot across the bow of the US government.

The purported reason that the US is deploying these missile defense systems to Poland and the Czech Republic at this time was to deter Iran from attacking America's European allies with ballistic missiles in the event of an American-Iranian military conflict. It has been described in some reports as part of the build-up of US forces in the Persian Gulf region intended to intimidate Iran.  

Either Putin isn't buying that explanation, or he is so unhappy with the Bush administration's rhetoric regarding Iran (or both) that he has felt the need to impress upon the United States that it's continued  aggressive military posturing in the Middle East and Eastern Europe will have significant consequences for US-Russian relations.  Here's what he's had to say over the last two weeks regarding these US military deployments:

In both his annual Kremlin news conference, which occurred on Feb.1, and in his appearance at the Munich Security Conference the following week, Russian President Vladimir Putin denounced U.S. plans to deploy ballistic missile defenses in Eastern Europe. Insisting that the Russian government must consider how to ensure the country's national security, Putin pledged to adopt a "highly effective" response.

I guess threatening withdrawal from the INF treaty, and the prospect of a new nuclear arms race between America and Russia, is the first step in that "highly effective" response to the US stationing advanced missile defense systems near Russia's borders.  And who can blame the Russians, considering that the Bush administration has been talking about placing these defensive systems in Eastern Europe for some time now, long before the threat from Iranian ballistic missiles was advanced as a justification.

For several years, the U.S. government has been pursuing bilateral initiatives with select NATO members to deploy a small number of U.S. ballistic missile defense (BMD) interceptors in Eastern Europe. On Jan. 20, 2007, U.S. officials made a formal proposal to the new Czech government, offering to establish an American-run BMD radar system on Czech territory. On Jan. 22, they announced that the United States and Poland would soon begin formal discussions about the possible stationing of U.S. BMD interceptor missiles on Polish territory. This deployment would establish the first U.S. missile interceptor base outside the United States.

The trouble is, such proposals are not seen by the Russians as aimed at Iran, necessarily.  They fear that the real reason for these "defensive missiles" may be to neutralize Russian military capabilities, and thus allow American military aggression in regions vital to Russia's security interests to go unchecked.  In other words, they view these developments as being aimed at limiting the scope of Russia's influence and power, and preserving an American military hegemony in the Middle East.  That is, they consider these actions by the US government as destabilizing, and not directed at preventing or deterring nuclear proliferation, as has been claimed by US officials.  

It's not surprising, therefore, that the Russia would respond to such moves with the recent harsh rhetoric from President Putin directed at the United States and the conduct of its foreign policy under Bush:

"The unipolar world that had been proposed after the Cold War did not take place ... However one might embellish this term, in the end it refers to one type of situation, namely one center of authority, one center of force, one center of decision-making. It is a world in which there is one master, one sovereign. And in the end this is pernicious not only for all those within this system, but also for the sovereign itself because it destroys itself from within. And this certainly has nothing in common with democracy. Because, as you know, democracy is the power of the majority in light of the interests and opinions of the minority." [...]

"... Unilateral and frequently illegitimate actions have not resolved problems. Moreover, they have caused new human tragedies and created new centers of tension. Judge for yourselves: wars as well as local and regional conflicts have not diminished ... And no fewer people perish in these conflicts - even more die than before. Significantly more, significantly more!"

"...One state and, of course, first and foremost the United States has overstepped its national borders in every respect. This is visible in the economic, political, cultural and educational policies it imposes on other nations. Well, who likes this? Who is happy about this? ... And of course this is extremely dangerous. The result of this is that no one feels safe. I want to emphasize this - no one feels safe! Because no one can feel that international law is like a stone wall that will protect them!"

Nor is it surprising that Russia's political and military leaders would consider further military and diplomatic responses that significantly raise the risk of drawing America and Russia into a direct confrontation at some point in the near future.

...Three-star General Vladimir Popovkin, chief of the Russian Space Troops, told reporters, "The U.S. bases would be a clear threat to Russia." Popovkin expressed concern that the new radar would be monitoring Russian strategic nuclear missiles deployed in Central Russia and the North Fleet (Barents Sea/Kola Peninsula). "It's doubtful that Iranian or North Korean rockets would fly over Poland or the Czech Republic," he commented. "If such a base would be deployed in Turkey, which is a NATO member and much closer to Iran, we would not be asking questions." ...

...Official news agency Itar-Tass quotes General Vitaly Dubrovin, a Russian military expert in the sphere of anti-missile and space defense, who believes that "the reply measures should include the possibility of the destruction of the U.S. [missile defense] system in Europe" (Itar-Tass, January 22).

Looks like the Russians have learned that two can play the "no option is off the table" game.

In any event, I guess Bush and Cheney really do long to relive those thrilling days of yesteryear when the Cold War offered a wonderful excuse to build literally mountains of nuclear weapons and their delivery systems, and set American defense spending soaring to heights never before matched in American history until -- well, until George W. Bush took office in 2001.   And perhaps that is the real legacy that George W. Bush seeks to be remembered for; as the man who re-cemented the power of the military-industrial complex, and the corruption of our democracy it brings with it, in American politics.  No other explanation (other than rampant megalomania and delusions of empire on the part of our dear leaders) makes much sense.

Display:
Wonderful. Bush has/is creating complete chaos...<damn>.

"Once in awhile we get shown the light, in the strangest of places, if we look at it right" - Hunter/Garcia
by whataboutbob on Thu Feb 15th, 2007 at 04:40:23 PM EST
We won the cold war! Encircling Russia is our reward.

you are the media you consume.

by MillMan (millguy at gmail) on Thu Feb 15th, 2007 at 06:13:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Define win for me please.
by Digitking on Fri Feb 16th, 2007 at 02:20:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Thanks for this post, concerning what is slowly becoming a very alarming develoment in Europe.
What Poland and the Czech Republic will gain by having radars/missiles on their soil, I can't understand. If anything, they will be less safe.

And where is the European Defense ? So much to do in Europe, and nothing moves.

by balbuz on Thu Feb 15th, 2007 at 05:07:51 PM EST
What Poland and the Czech Republic will gain by having radars/missiles on their soil, I can't understand.

There's an issue of visas - Poland couldn't get visa-free travel to USA even by sending a lot of troops to Iraq. It's a sensitive issue in both Czech Rep and Poland.

Second, a base always means income (a cynic would say prostitution as well, but hey, who would bother about that in the Czech Republic, sex tourism capital of Central Europe?), and extra income never hurts.

And third, it means that CR and Poland remain glued to the USA even if NATO falls apart (which just might happen: they say any military alliance that had a misfortune of including Hungary had met an untimely death in recent centuries) or the hell freezes over.

So, you see, a lot of advantages. And not too many losses: Russian rockets would fly to the USA over the Arctic, not Warsaw.

by Sargon on Fri Feb 16th, 2007 at 04:33:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

US Senate panel approves bill for visa-free travel for citizens from CEE (bne )

A US Senate panel on Thursday approved legislation that could lead to visa-free travel to the United States for citizens from Eastern European nations, Latvian News Agency reported.

The bill endorsed by the Homeland Security Committee would allow U.S. President George W Bush to designate which countries to include in the visa waiver program based on their cooperation in the war on terrorism.

The bill still must be approved by the full Senate, and a similar measure must pass in the lower House of Representatives before Bush can sign it into law.




In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Fri Feb 16th, 2007 at 05:42:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Russian rockets would fly to the USA over the Arctic, not Warsaw.

The magic the distorted mercator porjection plays on our perceptions...

I have a project to produce gnomonic projection maps cetered at various points to illustrate "the world as seen from ..."

"It's the statue, man, The Statue."

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Feb 16th, 2007 at 06:13:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I did know a website doing stuff like this once - they'd even tell you which way to turn to face Mecca - but when I needed to plot a missile trajectory from Iran to DC, it was nowhere to be seen, alas...
by Sargon on Sat Feb 17th, 2007 at 08:33:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I think you just made the no-fly-list with that comment... There is probably a CIA plane on its way to pick you up for a nice, surprise holiday in the Carribean as we speak. Unfortunatily we are now officially part of your network of contacts.
by Trond Ove on Mon Feb 19th, 2007 at 07:38:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]
ROFL.

This trajectory would make-or-break a number of arguments - I've read in Russian media both that a) Poland is actually the most convenient place for anti-missiles, as they'd be right under the ascending part of the trajectory, and b) that it's total BS, and the antimissiles should be placed in Turkey or Italy... how easy it is to be an expert when checking what you say isn't just a click away...

by Sargon on Tue Feb 20th, 2007 at 01:05:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I guess a globe and a piece of string would help. Unfortunately I have neither.
by Trond Ove on Tue Feb 20th, 2007 at 02:30:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]
That's exactly the problem! Guess we need help from a current secondary school student - hopefully they still keep globes in classrooms.
by Sargon on Tue Feb 20th, 2007 at 03:01:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The purported reason that the US is deploying these missile defense systems to Poland and the Czech Republic at this time was to deter Iran from attacking America's European allies with ballistic missiles in the event of an American-Iranian military conflict. It has been described in some reports as part of the build-up of US forces in the Persian Gulf region intended to intimidate Iran.

This is absolute bullshit. I think it was FarEasterner that reported recently seeing zome Czech minister claiming that the radars were intended to protect the Czech Republic from Hezbollah rockets...

"It's the statue, man, The Statue."

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Feb 15th, 2007 at 05:28:44 PM EST
I think it was FarEasterner that reported recently seeing zome Czech minister claiming that the radars were intended to protect the Czech Republic from Hezbollah rockets...

Hezbollah = Iran = Islamofascists = European Muslims. Clearly the Czechs need protection from the Katyushas and missiles that will be coming from the German Turks.

by MarekNYC on Thu Feb 15th, 2007 at 05:34:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Are the Czech and Polish people really fooled by this stuff?

"It's the statue, man, The Statue."
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Feb 15th, 2007 at 05:53:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]
We had that discussion recently - it's not that the Poles think that this is of any use to them, it's about helping the US. Even this government which includes the two parties least inclined towards that view, the government's policy is completely dominated by the PiS, which whatever its differences with the PO, the SLD, or the left liberals has the same view of Polish-US relations. There is some debate about what Poland is getting from this specific measure, and whether it is worth it, but it's all in that context.
by MarekNYC on Thu Feb 15th, 2007 at 06:43:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]
So they are willing, for historical reasons, to help a rogue country, even if they have nothing to gain and probably a lot to lose ?

Those were happier times, when we had [mass demonstrations] against the Pershing and SS20 missiles!

I have this same feeling of not understanding what is going on, as when everything indicated that Bush II and his cohort would attack Irak, and I couldn't fathom the reasons.

by balbuz on Fri Feb 16th, 2007 at 01:03:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You are calling The Leader of the Free World™ a rogue country?

"It's the statue, man, The Statue."
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Feb 16th, 2007 at 02:27:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Actually, it's my cat, I wanted to type "The Leader of the Free World", the cat jumped on the keyboard, and what came out was "a rogue country" !?! Go figure.
by balbuz on Fri Feb 16th, 2007 at 02:53:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Communist pinko cat! Grmpft

"It's the statue, man, The Statue."
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Feb 16th, 2007 at 02:55:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Ok, assuming for one second (I know, this is going to be hard) we (America) are not establishing missile defense systems in Poland and the Czech Republic in order to protect them in case Iran decides to bomb Brno or something (though I am sure that's at the top of their to-do list...), why on earth are we even considering such a move?

Are the Poles and Czechs really that vulnerable, even from big scary Russia?  Does anyone actually think we're going to see WWIII not in the Middle East, but in Eastern Europe?  Seriously, I have a problem accepting this.  Even if I imagine for a minute we'd do this to get Polish and Czech signatures and bodies for our new war in Iran, a deal which they'd be mad to agree to, aren't these countries already protected by all kinds of treaties and such?  Why do they need or want our missile defense system?  And doesn't the EU have a say in this type of thing?  

Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. -Voltaire

by p------- on Thu Feb 15th, 2007 at 05:54:43 PM EST
Why do you think the EU has a say on the foreign policy of its member states?

"It's the statue, man, The Statue."
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Feb 15th, 2007 at 06:26:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Great, so is it going to start exercising its right to have that say, or is it going to, once again, talk a lot, fall apart and play dead when tested by the Bush administration?  I'm not optimistic.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.
by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Fri Feb 16th, 2007 at 01:56:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]
What right to have a say?

"It's the statue, man, The Statue."
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Feb 16th, 2007 at 02:30:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The one you mention that I was replying to.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.
by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Fri Feb 16th, 2007 at 02:42:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]
And why does the EU have that right?

"It's the statue, man, The Statue."
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Feb 16th, 2007 at 02:50:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]
E U = Economic Union. That's what it is. Nothing else.
Ok I know its European Union but it really hasn't much of the power ...even economically. All though it's nice wish...dream...whatever.


Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind...Albert Einstein
by vbo on Fri Feb 16th, 2007 at 08:12:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Not only that, apparently even the proposed EU constitution is a step back from the Treaty on European Union:
As regards the decision-making process, the Commission will not have the power to submit proposals in CFSP matters. The Council of Ministers continues to decide by unanimous vote in most cases and the Member States will have the right of veto. Compared with the EU Treaty, the Constitution limits the CFSP instruments, restricting them to European decisions and international agreements. The use of legislative instruments such as European laws and framework laws is excluded.


"It's the statue, man, The Statue."
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Feb 16th, 2007 at 08:20:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Pick an answer, which ever one you like the best:

candid:  Because I, like most non-Europeans, and I am guessing a fair amount of Europeans, don't  know what the hell the function of the EU is right now.

or

mean:  Mig, one day Europe will earn the right to have a smug patronizing attitude, but for the time being, Europe is still relying on NATO to protect it from Russians and Iranians or whomever else they imagine wants to harm them.   So long as you need America to protect you, you should be nicer to us. :P

or

snarky:  Oh, I don't know, the last time you decided not to have a say in matters of the defense of the Czechs, something rather terrible happened, didn't it?  

or

reasoned:  Because one is inclined to think that a governmental body representing a union of states, nations, individuals, whatever, would take an interest in matters which impact the interests, goals, etc of their membership and which promote or violate the values upon which that body has been founded.  I know the UN is not terribly good at doing anything about anything, but at the very least there is a forum in which people can at least have a say in matters which concern them...  As someone else said, if anything, this missile defense system would seem to be inviting trouble.  I understand the EU's policy of allowing sovereign nations to protect themselves, but as with America, which can go and protect itself however it sees fit, there is at least some veneer of UN oversight which we have to run circles around before we invade a country.   And while it's not like Poland or the CR are planning any invasions, I do think that buildup of American military and defense encircling Russia is unnecessarily hostile and that it does impact Europe's interests (uh, hello, don't you guys want their gas?)...   And while it might be the EU's current policy not to meddle in the foreign policy of member states, I should think the recent CIA flights would have someone reconsidering that policy...

Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. -Voltaire

by p------- on Fri Feb 16th, 2007 at 01:39:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Candid: I can live with that.

Mean: Europe need America to defend it, says who? America? And who thinks Iran (or Russia, for that matter) is a direct military threat to Europe?

Snarky: don't mention the war!

Snarky2: if we're appeasing someone right now, it's the US.

reasoned: taking an interest in matters doesn't mean having a say in them, or even a right to have a say. The common foreign and security policy of the EU, constitutionally, must be agreed unanimously by the governments of the member states. The UN security  council can actually make decisions by qualified majority, by virtue of its constituent treaty.

"It's the statue, man, The Statue."

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Feb 16th, 2007 at 02:46:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Why would Russia care? It's not like they can't swamp this system 100 times over already.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
by Starvid on Thu Feb 15th, 2007 at 07:06:50 PM EST
Exactly.  The whole thing, even if it finally worked, would be useless in a war between Russia and America -- a war that is, needless to say, not likely to occur.  MAD still stands, even with the shield.  So let's stop this nonsense, and get back to bullying the countries that don't have nukes.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.
by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Fri Feb 16th, 2007 at 02:02:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Perhaps they can't. What's the state of maintenance of Russia's nuclear force? Anyway, I guess the fear is that a degraded second strike capability could be largely neutralised by this sort of stuff, encouraging thoughts of first strikes. I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed ...
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Fri Feb 16th, 2007 at 03:27:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Yep.
Just imagine one second that the current Dear Leader of the Free WorldTM (thanks Mig for the correction) was in command 30 years ago. One shudders...
by balbuz on Fri Feb 16th, 2007 at 04:07:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Thirty years ago everyone was too scared to have the luxury of voting for someone that stupid. The next election, neither party will have the ability to put up for election someone who's the bloke you'd want a drink with in the pub, the electorate will want someone competent who will sort this shit out.

Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.
by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Fri Feb 16th, 2007 at 04:57:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Who would want to have a drink with Bush in the pub?

"It's the statue, man, The Statue."
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Feb 16th, 2007 at 05:15:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I'd like to have a drink with Bush in a couple of really rough pubs that I used to frequent in my youth. You just know he wouldn't be able to either avoid looking at someones girlfriend in the wrong way.

Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.
by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Fri Feb 16th, 2007 at 03:16:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Ronald Reagan?

The Hun is always either at your throat or at your feet. Winston Churchill
by r------ on Fri Feb 16th, 2007 at 10:05:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Thirty years ago they voted for Carter.

"It's the statue, man, The Statue."
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Feb 16th, 2007 at 10:11:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]
<scratches head> You don't mean to belittle one of the Democratic Party's heroes of the past do you? </scratches head>

The Hun is always either at your throat or at your feet. Winston Churchill
by r------ on Fri Feb 16th, 2007 at 10:38:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I guess the objection could rather go against the high powered XBR radar which can track a softball 4000km away.
After all, such surveillance capability of entire european (and russian) airspace must be of great interest to the US...
by jv (euro@junkie.cz) on Fri Feb 16th, 2007 at 06:03:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]
This radar most likely won't work as advertised, so the actual reason for installing it is something otehr than missile defence. Surveillance of Airspace West of the Urals? Encircling of Russia? Pork for defence contractors? Creating new causes of friction between the EU and Russia?

"It's the statue, man, The Statue."
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Feb 16th, 2007 at 06:11:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

On Jan. 20, 2007, U.S. officials made a formal proposal to the new Czech government, offering to establish an American-run BMD radar system on Czech territory.

What it doesn't mention is that it was just two hours after the govermnent passed vote of confidence in parliament (thanks to two opposition members who voted for it)

Unfortunately, the population is being conditioned that whoever doesn't support this is "stupid", "communist" (manifestation of repolarised binary communist thinking) or a "coward". Op-eds on Russian objections to it are sweeping it away them with "you ruled here for 40 years so now shut up". And babbling something about "transatlantic bridge".

And hey, "It's just a radar"

by jv (euro@junkie.cz) on Fri Feb 16th, 2007 at 06:13:50 AM EST
Forgot to add - current government including the president Václav Klaus is very very eurosceptic. Essentially wants EU to be just free market zone.
by jv (euro@junkie.cz) on Fri Feb 16th, 2007 at 06:21:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Don't get me started on Vaclav Klaus.

"It's the statue, man, The Statue."
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Feb 16th, 2007 at 06:47:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I remember Czech PM in interview on EuroNews was talking about ABM as protection of Czech republic from Hizbollah rockets. Are Czechs so worried?
by FarEasterner on Sun Feb 18th, 2007 at 09:33:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I think their PM thinks they're stupid.

"It's the statue, man, The Statue."
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Feb 18th, 2007 at 10:02:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Hello Migeru from Mumbai (it's awfully hot here). I am planning to make some trips so will try to post sparingly.
by FarEasterner on Sun Feb 18th, 2007 at 10:10:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I hope you'll be able to find time to write some travel diaries.

"It's the statue, man, The Statue."
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Feb 18th, 2007 at 10:36:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]
After a day of silence on the issue, Labor frontbencher Peter Garrett has thrown his full support behind a new US military communications base planned for Western Australia.  

vbo: We are getting "a new US military communications base" too. Welcome to the club!
I am definitely going to vote Greens next election. Not only that they are against this new base but they would like to close all coal mines in Australia. I love them!
And they are getting pretty strong, polls show, so they will be some kind of balance of power. Anyway it's not going to stop or change anything in Australia. But it's great to have them. And I don't feel like I am real leftist, ha-ha.

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind...Albert Einstein

by vbo on Fri Feb 16th, 2007 at 08:40:02 AM EST
Is there anything that Bush can't screw up?  What a total doofus.  Just when I think his antics could not possibly provide the stage for yet another theater in this war against the rest of humanity events prove otherwise.

alohapolitics.com
by Keone Michaels on Fri Feb 16th, 2007 at 10:31:42 AM EST


Display:
Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]