I need help identifing fallacies.?I need to know determine which side of the issue the writer supports.?

The American plan to install the forward edge of its antimissile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic has raised memories of the great cold war struggle over America鈥檚 decision to station medium-range nuclear missiles in Europe. Of course, back then the resistance was largely in the streets. This time most of the questioning is coming from within the governments of Germany and France.
The American plan to install the forward edge of its antimissile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic has raised memories of the great cold war struggle over America鈥檚 decision to station medium-range nuclear missiles in Europe. Of course, back then the resistance was largely in the streets. This time most of the questioning is coming from within the governments of Germany and France.
We have argued before that the proposed missile defense is not a good idea. The technology is uncertain; the threat from Iran and North Korea might yet be averted diplomatically. And repeatedly provoking Russia will only make Russia more of a problem, we fear. The shield, moreover, is really intended as a defense of the United States (and Europe) by the United States, and so only deepens the perception of American arrogance and selfishness. The Bush administration, scornful of traditional diplomacy, has made it worse by not doing more to consult either its longtime allies or its rival Russia.
As ever, Europe has confused the situation further by its inability to agree on any position or speak with a single or even a few voices. (Part of the problem is that 鈥淥ld Europe鈥?clearly resents the desire of 鈥淣ew Europe鈥?to make the Americans happy.) If the European Union really wants to have a say on this issue 鈥?and many others 鈥?it would do best to first sort out what it would say.
It should start by insisting that Washington seriously discuss what threats are out there 鈥?and what it sees as the best ways to defend against them. Europe needs to know that it is not being used as a pawn in some larger chess game between Washington and Iran. Europe should remind Washington of the dangers of riling up the Russians. The best defense is still a common defense

The writer is against the proposed missile defense, as shown when they state "We have argued before that the proposed missile defense is not a good idea."

The whole article seems to be based on opinion rather than fact, like "scornful of traditional diplomacy, has made it worse...", "Europe needs to know that it is not being used as a pawn"