Brzezinski - US Must Shoot Down Israelis If They Attack Iran

page: 2
18
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 10:27 AM
link   
No offense to Mr. Brzezinski, but the US doesn't have to do anything. And the US shouldn't do anything. I'm tired of Our government forcing us to intervene in every stupid conflict around the world. That's Russia, and the "Mighty" EU's side of the world anyway. If they feel like poking their nose where it doesn't belong, then they should get involved, then the rest of the world can hate them for the next century.

To hell with Israel, to hell with Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Syria, Georgia, Ossestia, to hell with all of it. They want to kill each other let them. Bunch of slack jawed mouth breathers, I'm tired of this stupid crap.

Can't we just flush the world and start over?




posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 10:28 AM
link   
I honestly didn't expect this one...there's something else to this...



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 10:50 AM
link   
I haven't seen in this discussion any mention of Saudi Arabia. It isn't exactly a secret that the Saudis have co-ordinated them majority of foreign policy decisions in the Middle East that involved the US.

Not to say they are unified in their support of the US. They also financed 9/11, at least a rogue group in the royal family under the behest of King Fahd's son, Abdul Aziz.

The US is in Iraq now as a follow-up to the US being asked to bring down Saddam Hussein in 1991. The Saudis mistakenly told the Americans to cut short of taking him out - a regrettable mistake.

The Saudis are now dealing with the reality that Iran is moving closer to them taking vulnerable entities into their sphere of influence - Syria, Yemen, Lebanon, Gaza, now Iraq.

The Saudis want Iran neutered. They are quite please with their back up contingency. Israel will do the heavy lifting necessary, and suffer the losses. Iran and Israel are neutered, and the Saudis kill two birds with one stone.

Of course none of this hits the press. The Saudis actively control information on themselves buying up news agencies and taking control of heavyweights like Reuters and Associated Press with their shareholding positions.

Israel does not want to engage in a war with Iran, but is being pressured by Iran’s proxy war with them using Hamas and Hezbollah as mercenary forces.

The problem for the Middle East is the two primary antagonists, Saudi Arabia and Iran are both conflicting theocracies with endless oil revenues. They are engaged in a tribal war that has crippled development in the region for decades and stifles progress.

Israel is the unwelcome guest at the party, and both sides try to use it for their benefit. Destruction of Israel would win points for whoever took credit.

The US coldly watches on the sideline. The weakening of Middle East states with endless useless infighting only benefits them in the end.

The best hope for the world is that the people in Iran and hopefully one day in Saudi Arabia, will rise up and throw off the yoke of oppression imposed by the primitive theocracies that have kept the region backwards for so long.


M



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by warrenb

Imho, he's right.
Israel cannot expect everyone to sit idly by while they bomb another country without physical provocation. They'd kill countless innocent people and start a regional war that would, in all likelihood; be the catalyst to their eventual destruction in that region.


First, I'm afraid that the 'physical provocation' you say is necessary for bombing, is the bomb that is being created in the very bomb making facility that should be bombed in order to prevent said 'physical provocation'.

I'm all for preemptive strikes when they are meticulously planned to attain a specific defense goal, and when and only when intelligence is nearly 100%. However, hitting a bomb factory in Iran isn't that simple. If there are bomb factories, they're not in the middle of the desert, above ground in plain sight, so getting reliable intel on locations is difficult. If reliable information on locations exist, sure - shove a bunker buster up their ass. Unfortunately, considering the people running the government of Iran, I wouldn't be surprised if the bomb factory or factories were located under densely populated areas.

I'm quite certain that Israel has wanted and has plans to hit Iran, and that the U.S. has been holding them at bay for a long time. And Brzezinski is right, we should stop them because the timing would be very, very bad, but what bothers me is that the tone and gist of this article seems to try to make it sound like he wants to pit the two allies against one another. I don't think that's the point at all.

Brz's more a not war guy, than a war guy... should be secretary of peace, really, but he understands very well how wars work, how they go right, how they go wrong. He's a smart dude. Powder Keg is an analogy that's used a lot for the Middle East, but I think a better analogy is a bomb like in that Die Hard movie. Separately, two chemicals are relatively inert, but when combined, the create a hugely volatile compound. You don't want to shake it, or get it hot, or especially mix it all together.

What needs to continue to happen is separating any form of centralized leadership or cooperative interaction or communication with the most untrustworthy of the Middle East countries, especially Saudi Arabia. Isolate each threat so they can be prioritized and neutralized accordingly with straightforward surgical operations, rather than trying to put out fires all over the place.

I'm going to look for editorial or other mixed commentary on those Brz quotes and see who actually is understanding what he's trying to say.



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 11:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by mikerussellus
If the UK decides to bomb Iran, are we going to attack them?

I don't know when this love-affair with Iran started, but please, wake up!

-hrrmmphh!-


People are now getting the idea that by not allowing an attack on Iran is the same as defending Iran. That's completely opposite the point.

The idea is that when an attack is conducted through our controlled airspace, we then become complicit in the attack. That is the point. We can't afford to be seen as complicit in military operations where we have none. The interpretation would lead us into a new conflict (more effectively a diplomatic catastrophe) at a time not of our choosing, and at a time when we are still having a hard time dealing with the two war fronts we've already engaged.

The point is conservation of force. That's a technical term. This is not a time that we could divide our forces into thirds, or at least have to plan a contingency for a more likely inevitability of such should Israel attack Iran through our airspace.



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by pavil
Let's see...let's attack Israel for attacking Iran so we will have to do it ourselves later on. Makes perfect sense to me.....


No, later Israel will still be willing to do it themselves. But I say better we hold them off until we can combine our forces if necessary and do it better and cleaner. We just can't do it right now.



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 11:31 AM
link   
Before rushing to praise Brzezinski on his great insights one also has to recall he assured the Shah that the US would back him to the hilt and in fact advocated a plan for the US to prevent the Islamic Revolution by force.

He also was the key figure empowering the mujahadeen to fight the Russians in Afghanistan. As we know that ended up with an underutilized military force that channeled it's knowledge and skills into the modern terrorist network that was know at times as Al Qaida. In a way you could say Brzezinski made bin Laden.

And with this new confidence and military capability coupled with the Saudi Wahhabism we have seen the rise of Islamic extremism worldwide.

One could almost claim the modern Middle East problems can be laid at the feet of Brzezinski's past advisement policies.

Are we sure we want to take his advice again?


Mike



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
He also was the key figure empowering the mujahadeen to fight the Russians in Afghanistan. As we know that ended up with an underutilized military force that channeled it's knowledge and skills into the modern terrorist network that was know at times as Al Qaida. In a way you could say Brzezinski made bin Laden.


It would be more accurate to say that the ways and means committee and the clandestine operations office empowered the mujahadeen, while the appropriations committee and congressional budget officers created Bin Laden.



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 12:03 PM
link   
Brzezinski is less relevant than Jimmy Carter.

Let us hope that Obama and his administration feel the same.



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
Brzezinski is less relevant than Jimmy Carter.


This is the most pertinent information that has been, or will be posted on this thread...



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 12:54 PM
link   
reply to post by GradyPhilpott
 


Let's hope so, the media seemingly wants to play him up as some great foreign policy adviser. I for one would be glad if the Obama administration keeps him away from everything. He has already done enough damage that needs repairing.



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by DeltaChaos

People are now getting the idea that by not allowing an attack on Iran is the same as defending Iran. That's completely opposite the point.

The idea is that when an attack is conducted through our controlled airspace, we then become complicit in the attack. That is the point. We can't afford to be seen as complicit in military operations where we have none. The interpretation would lead us into a new conflict (more effectively a diplomatic catastrophe) at a time not of our choosing, and at a time when we are still having a hard time dealing with the two war fronts we've already engaged.

The point is conservation of force. That's a technical term. This is not a time that we could divide our forces into thirds, or at least have to plan a contingency for a more likely inevitability of such should Israel attack Iran through our airspace.



I think you have summed up the situation quite accurately IMHO.


And then there are the economic repercussion to consider also , with the current dire states of many countries economic life . Anything which exacerbates these difficulties will surely be resisted .



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 03:36 PM
link   
When Obama was campaigning Brzezinski had a photo op with him and there was speculation of him coming onboard officially or otherwise. Ironically Kissinger was cited a lot recently.

This may be a signal that the US Cold Warriors still in critical decision making positions are going back to their old sources.

This is, needless to say, a disastrous state of affairs. What the US desperately needs is a diplomacy totally different from what went down in the past.

Suspiciously Brzezinski may be given exposure to consolidate opinion
on decisions that are already in play.

He is not the right guy to be taking advice from.

M



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 03:52 PM
link   
If the Israelis cross Iraqi airspace, the US has to turn them around, shoot them down or risk missiles coming down on our troops in Iraq, something that I do not think will be allowed.


Personally, I think that if it happens with aircraft instead of missiles, the Israelis will cross the northern part of Saudi Arabia, either via the Gulf of Aqaba or by crossing Jordanian airspace, will top off in the Gulf, strike targets, and return via Turkey, where they will have tankers waiting to fill up for the ride home.

Or they could reverse the route.

But either way they will be careful to avoid US controlled airspace, for the obvious reasons. Unless they want to draw the US in to the mess, in which case a calculated intrusion would be a possibility, making sure that they only are in US airspace long enough for it to be noticed, but not long enough for fighters to arrive to return them home.



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by digger2381
.

But either way they will be careful to avoid US controlled airspace, for the obvious reasons. Unless they want to draw the US in to the mess, in which case a calculated intrusion would be a possibility, making sure that they only are in US airspace long enough for it to be noticed, but not long enough for fighters to arrive to return them home.



U.S fighters might be engaged in a drill fighting multiple phantom bogies during an Israeli incursion into Iraqi airspace........ too obvious perhaps.

Whatever about making it to Iran unscathed , the return leg will have all the nations on the possible routes home , watching their airspace.

The logistics of such a sortie are daunting , i believe the Israelis are expecting heavy losses * (up to 40%)*.
Perhaps the prospect of the Iranians having the Russian Missile defence system or not , may be the deciding factor in whether or not the strike goes ahead.
The Israeli air forces daring raid on Saddam's Osirak reactor in the 80`s will be something akin to the Iranian mission but with a longer flight & multiple targets who will be waiting for them .

Fascinating documentary about the Iraqi Osirak reactor bombing mission.

Raid on the Reactor


Google Video Link




* Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Security Studies Program, “Osirak Redux? Assessing Israeli Capabilities to Destroy Iranian Nuclear Facilities



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 07:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Foppezao
They're not going to fly through Iraq, its gonna be Turkey, a good ally in that region. The same route as when they bombed the Syrian reactors...
A good choice, in terms of accessary of Turkey, Iran doesnt stand a chance against the huge standing army and airforce of Turkey, with Iraq and the troops stationed there it is another story...

www.globalresearch.ca...


www.presstv.ir...

[edit on 21-9-2009 by Foppezao]


Even the most radical pro US supporter wouldn't be able to utter these suggestions in public in Turkey. This country has a very unstable balance between the pro Islamist and the pro militarist political parties. I wouldn't be surprised if the attempted coups that failed against the established government weren't Israeli backed in order to build a more solid base for Israel to have enough room to maneuver in case it attacked Iran alone. After that failures and the recent events in Georgia-Ossetia since Russians now used it as an excuse to probably establish their presence closer to Turkish airspace and Syrian Iraqi borders, and since they probably made a point after bombing an alleged Israeli installation in Georgia, I don't think Israel has much element of surprise anymore. Only option would be American monitored and operated airspace in Iraq and now that is also a resounding NO by Brzezinski which probably when heard from Iran will confirm their possible suspicions and result for gathering of more momentum for Ahmadinezad.

One thing is clear to me. Israel must not like Obama a bit and might want to see him out the door. If Brzezinski had to voice his concern and opinion there is a good chance he is doing it because Obama cannot state this out in the open himself. An Israeli attack on Iran through Iraq might also set alight the current situation in Iraq which seems that it has calmed down recently.

[edit on 21-9-2009 by spacebot]

An attack against Iran from Israel especially at this time will only give the Russians all the good excuses to become stronger in this region and possibly Brzezinski does not want that, maybe he has other plans for them stored in a more politically convenient future. Maybe Israel want's Russians stronger in the region but that wouldn't explain their involvement in Georgia (if Russians weren't really lying about that).

[edit on 21-9-2009 by spacebot]



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 07:23 PM
link   
That would make us hypocrites. We went into Iraq because of WMD's and the fear Saddam might use them. Doesn't Israel have those same fears with regard to Iran and nuclear weapons? I personally think time is on Israels side because Iran is decaying from within. It takes patience and in the long run will work out. Even if Iran was to get a few nuclear weapons. Will they really use them knowing good and well that if they did a retaliatory strike and the complete destruction of Iran would come? It's called mutually assured destruction (MAD). It's a hell of a deterrent.

[edit on 21-9-2009 by cloakndagger]



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 07:27 PM
link   
Apparently Mr. Brzezinski has not kept abreast of world affairs at all.They would not go through Iraq at all it would be Turkey. What he is unaware of is that Turkey and Israel signed a military cooperation agreement in 1996. And the Turkish military hates Islamic fundamentalists and would probably provide tactical support as well. So to put it nicely hes an idiot!



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 07:45 PM
link   
Listen, I know I'm going to go against the grain saying this but, I think when it comes to a lot of Israel's military action, they've actually been taking orders from America for years. When they blew up Iran's original Nuclear program in the 90s (i believe it was the 90s) everyone condemned them (until 9/11. After that, I remember people on the news and news show saying what a great thing it was etc ,etc). I personally don't think America wanted Iran to have nukes then, just like our government doesn't want them to have them now, so we told the Israeli's to do it.

Anyway, on to a slightly different topic - I haven't seen one of you say anything about Zbignew being a member of the Council of Foreign Relations and, I believe, the Trilateral Commission. Don't most of you believe members of these institutions are part of TPTB. Now, TPTB are threatening Israel?!?!?!
Israel's just a pawn like everyone else.



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 08:00 PM
link   
Everyone seems to want to ignore Saudi Arabia.

Guess which country just gave Israel the Green Light to fly over their space.

The US went into Iraq and Afghanistan largely to contain Iran For better or worse the West has decided the Saudis have the upper hand. The threats to Israel are more a provocation of the US than a desire to engage in a direct war. As the hope was Saddam would be overthrown by his own people, the ideal is for an uprising in Iran to topple the Mullahs and Mr A.

Iran has looked at what North Korea gets away with on moving the nuclear issue forward despite reprimands. A bad model - North Korea isn't important. Were Iran to apply logical self-preservation they'd de-escalate the tension. But they do the opposite. Meaning they're running on emotion and religious fervour rather than common sense.

The way most of the world, even Russia sees the situation "They're asking for it."

Theocracies make for terrible governments and disastrous foreign policies.

Hope none of this comes to pass.


Mike



[edit on 21-9-2009 by mmiichael]





 
18
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join