Brzezinski - US Must Shoot Down Israelis If They Attack Iran

reply to post by really


There are no other dual citizens but Israeli ones, it has always been illegal to be a citizen of any other country and the U.S. and we allow no other nationality to hold a U.S. Passport and Citizenship and one of another country but Israeli ones.

This is about running an attonymous government.

This is about Americans for peace running the government.

This is about not letting any other nation's priority supercede our own and drag us into war or make us a target of terrorism because we are tied to their foreign policy through what they do as they influence our foreign policy of what we do for them.

We will not have peace letting another nation run the American Government and dictating it's policies and dictating to Americans what is politically acceptable per their standards.

Israel has a homeland, anyone who want's to be a citizen of Israel should live there.

Any body who lives in America a homogenous country should be just interested in America and what's good for America and allowing or supporting Israel in an attack against Iran is not good for America or the rest of the world.

Not one of these people debating me want peace or care about peace or place America first.

It's obvious in every word they write.

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler


What? Of course there are dual citizens in the US who aren't Israelis. I know one. She has an American and an Brit (EU) passport.


www.richw.org...

www.richw.org...

immigration.findlaw.com...
www.usimmigrationsupport.org...

At times I hear Zbig Brzezinski's name and shudder. My opinions about David Rockefeller's partner ... ahem ... is negative in the extreme. For those young folk who do not know who or what this man is, have a look-see:



While you may not know who Valery Filimonov is, he is a very important man in Russia in both scientific and Russian Orthodox circles. I recommend reading a short interview with him on an InterFax Religion web page that is very important in Russian circles:

Antichristian elite intends to herd people in electronic death camp to gain absolute power over them

Quite a title! And it is another perspective on all of those death camps... I mean relocation health centres being built by FEMA all across the fruited plain.

[edit on 22/9/09 by Pellevoisin]

reply to post by really


Furthermore, when did you highjack this thread. The thread was just about Zbigniew's surprising statement (to most) about shooting down Israeli Fighters planes that attack Iranian nuclear facilities.
You made it about American autonomy. That's a whole other story.

reply to post by really

That is if you have dual citizenship from birth or through Child Birth in other words you were born in England to an American Mother and a Brittish Father.

If you were born in England and lived there for 20 years and you become a naturalized U.S. Citizen you are going to have to give up your English citizenship.

The Law has been laxed a bit in more recent years in part because of the precedent dual Israeli/American citizens set and it was an American who moved to Israel and came back who was the first person to ever be allowed to vote in an American election after leaving the nation and accepting citizenship in another country.

That was a few decades ago before that. Prior to that if you voted in another nation's election it was an automatic forfiteur of your citizenship.

The thread though is about defending Iraqi Air Space from other nations invading it which America has a moral and legal obligation to do.

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
reply to post by really

 

The thread though is about defending Iraqi Air Space from other nations invading it which America has a moral and legal obligation to do.

You're a funny guy. That's a good trick you just pulled. Fantastic!

reply to post by really


Read through the thread you will see where it got derailed and by whom.

I know some poeple find it very hard to stay on topic with these issues but the thread is about whether America does it's lawful duty to protect Iraqi airspace from invasion and some people have a hard time understanding that their desire for America to act as Israel's Army and Protector can't supercede our legal obligations as a Sovereign Nation made to another Sovereign Nation.

We have treaties with Iraq and the Iraq Government that place a burden of responsibility on us to act in accord with them.

Some people would like us to sacrifice our own interests in being honorable and honoring our treaties to favor Israel and went so far as to say it's racist or un-American to not do that.

What's un-American is to sign concordances and agreements with a nation you have a legal obligation to defend and then not doing it for some other political expedience that has nothing to do with America or for America.

I know it's early in Tel Aviv have another cup of coffee try again later!

Thanks.

[edit on 22/9/09 by ProtoplasmicTraveler]

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
reply to post by really

 

That is if you have dual citizenship from birth or through Child Birth in other words you were born in England to an American Mother and a Brittish Father.

If you were born in England and lived there for 20 years and you become a naturalized U.S. Citizen you are going to have to give up your English citizenship.

By the way, you read none of the links I've posted and so are blissfully ignorant that you are not correct.

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
reply to post by really

 

I know it's early in Tel Aviv have another cup of coffee try again later!

Thanks.

[edit on 22/9/09 by ProtoplasmicTraveler]

Wow. Wrong again, man.

reply to post by stevegmu


I understand You don't like the rise of Anti Zionism, but it definitely is not anti-Semitism as the Palestinians are as well.

Here are some historic Israeli quotes that span the test of time; now bare in mind what You perceive as an in flush of Anti Zionism is just a balancing of a very longtime skewed set of scales.

whatreallyhappened.com...

1. "There is a huge gap between us (Jews) and our enemies ­not just in ability but in morality, culture, sanctity of life, and conscience. They are our neighbors here, but it seems as if at a distance of a few hundred meters away, there are people who do not belong to our continent, to our world, but actually belong to a different galaxy." Israeli president Moshe Katsav. The Jerusalem Post, May 10, 2001

2. "The Palestinians are like crocodiles, the more you give them meat, they want more".... Ehud Barak, Prime Minister of Israel at the time - August 28, 2000. Reported in the Jerusalem Post August 30, 2000

3. " [The Palestinians are] beasts walking on two legs." Menahim Begin, speech to the Knesset, quoted in Amnon Kapeliouk, "Begin and the Beasts". New Statesman, 25 June 1982.

4. "The Palestinians" would be crushed like grasshoppers ... heads smashed against the boulders and walls." " Isreali Prime Minister (at the time) in a speech to Jewish settlers New York Times April 1, 1988

5. "When we have settled the land, all the Arabs will be able to do about it will be to scurry around like drugged cockroaches in a bottle." Raphael Eitan, Chief of Staff of the Israeli Defence Forces, New York Times, 14 April 1983.

6. "How can we return the occupied territories? There is nobody to return them to." Golda Maier, March 8, 1969.

reply to post by sanchoearlyjones


I actually don't have a problem with those statements, considering what Israelis have had to put up with. If there were daily rocket attacks, periodic bombings, kidnappings and shootings coming from Mexico, I'd be saying the same things about Mexicans, and demand the US government put a stop to the attacks.

reply to post by really


Alright have another cup of tea then! I forgot not everyone in Tel Aviv drinks coffee.

I like my tea with lemon and sugar, but my coffee with vanilla and hazlenut flavored cream, how about you.

You see there is such a thing as the Law and Treaties, and we have really signed Treaties with Iraq to protect it during it's transitional phase back to full independence and atonomy.

We can't just allow other militaries not party to those agreements to just over fly it's sovereign territory we have sworn ourselves in legally binding agreements to protect for the sole purpose of allowing those other militaries to attack a close and bordering neighbor without putting that nation in jeapordy too.

Some so called Americans would like to just make our word be worthless in order to do, do, do for another country that we have no legal or moral obligation to break our own word and laws for.

They have gotten so used to in fact pressuring our Government and Citizens to acting in our own worst interests for their sake that when we refuse to or say we might not they actually attack our own citizens for being 'un-American' for wanting America's word and agreements to mean something to other people.

I know what your thinking! I think that's shameful and shameless to. Don't worry I told them!

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
reply to post by really

 

Alright have another cup of tea then! I forgot not everyone in Tel Aviv drinks coffee.

I like my tea with lemon and sugar, but my coffee with vanilla and hazlenut flavored cream, how about you.

Honestly, I think you're a really funny guy. But, still wrong.

Originally posted by stevegmu
reply to post by sanchoearlyjones

 

I actually don't have a problem with those statements, considering what Israelis have had to put up with. If there were daily rocket attacks, periodic bombings, kidnappings and shootings coming from Mexico, I'd be saying the same things about Mexicans, and demand the US government put a stop to the attacks.

We don't have that problem with Mexico because we actually PAID them for California and Texas!

Ouch that had to hurt!

Topic is America honoring it's treaties as a sovereign nation and defending Iraqi Airspace per our legal obiligations in treaties.

Originally posted by stevegmu
reply to post by InfaRedMan

 

Mass murder, at nuclear facilities? Someone doesn't know their history. Israel broke its back not to kill civilians during the raids on the Iraqi, then Syrian nuclear facilities. You think their plan is to just drop nuclear bombs on population centers?

It appears you are misquoting, baiting and creating your own subtext. I never once mentioned nuclear bombs. That's your own fabrication. My entire post was in regards to US airspace. Get your BS correct!

In regards to Israel's military being conscientious of innocent life; Your memory appears to be made of swiss cheese. Please don't tell me I need a history lesson when you cannot even think back to the recent atrocities in Palestine.

Conversation over!

IRM

reply to post by really

Furthermore, when did you highjack this thread. The thread was just about Zbigniew's surprising statement (to most) about shooting down Israeli Fighters planes that attack Iranian nuclear facilities. You made it about American autonomy. That's a whole other story.

I am weary of Zbigniew's statement because I simply don't believe the sincerity; AIPAC, and the new J-Street lobby own the USA. ¿No?, let's watch the Presidential campaign debates,"I'm a friend of Israel".....the other dude,"No, I'm big friend of Israel"........next dude,"NO, I'm the biggest friend to Israel"........ I couldn't give a rats &ss; I am concerned with America, not with any other country.

Now, taken at face value, and sincerity what Zbigniew said does show a breaking away from AIPAC, and J-Street lobby. It is one of the first apparent signs of the USA regaining somekind of autonomy. It's the same story.

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler


You spurred my brain on as usual. In allowing the use of Iraqi airspace either by the Iraqis, or the US for acts of aggression by Israel upon Iran I would think that in, and of itself would be considered an act of war. Simply by giving the green light for a fly over.

So, since the US is basically calling the shots in Iraq, then it would, or should be construed as an act of war by the US; as well.


Also, with recent findings that the documents accusing Iran of having a weapons program that stopped in 2003, were found to be a fraudulent contrived claim, simply doesn't support the call for war. It is coming out that Israel pressured the UN inspectors to alter, or fudge the ink a little.

Also, I am guessing from the above recent discovery a UN Non binding resolution has finally been ratified asking for the immediate inspection of all Israeli Nuclear sites.

Also, Syria is has started making waves to the UN regarding:
Syria: Israel dumping N-waste in Golan
www.presstv.ir...

Tel Aviv has acknowledged that it was digging tunnels in the region but claimed that they were anti-tank ditches.

The United Nations, however, under dominating influence by the US, has yet to investigate or even consider looking into such reports.

Note: The truth is like a shining lite that is to bright to go unseen; Israel even had to admit to the tunneling............ The truth always comes out; as it is now, and the truth says attacking Iran is unjust, and an act of cowardly aggression. I have no doubt that We will see the attempts, or actual False Flags in the USA, and the MSM will point the finger all day long at Iran........... Who benefits from this possible action???? I'll tell You right now, without a False Flag Israel will be going alone.

Any contribution from the US will launch WW 3. The numbers for that really aren't in Israel's favor, or the US. Basically the warhawking needs to stop, and let Peace, and Freedom reign.

reply to post by warrenb


i agree, no one should have the right to do that. The world has turned a blind eye to Israel in the past, we should let them know this will not and cannot continue.

reply to post by InfaRedMan


Really? This is exactly what you said-

It's not that simple. If you let missiles or fighter/bombers fly over your airspace en route to another country, like it or not, you are involved! Through compliance, you have condoned the mass murder of innocent people.

If you knew the history, you would know Israel attacked the facilities in Iraq and Syria at times their intelligence said there would be few, if any people there, so as to avoid casualties. How does bombing nuclear facilities equate to mass murder? Surely for mass murder, as you put it, to take place, nuclear weapons would be used on population centers, unless you consider a handful of deaths to be mass murder? Perhaps you forgot your own quote.

Stratfor covers the new dynamics between the US and Russia in an indepth analysis.

Much has to do with Russia's resentment of US military installation in Poland the Czech Republic - which were seen as encroaching on Russian turf.

A complex game is being played in the region with Russia and the US courting regional regimes. In the end it has to do with the flow of petroleum products, raw and refined.

More here:

baltic-review.com...

The Islamic world has been the focus of the United States since 9/11. In this context, the development of an Iranian nuclear capability was seen as a fundamental threat to U.S. national interests. The obvious response was a military strike to destroy Iranian power, but both the Bush and Obama administrations hesitated to take the step.

First, a strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities would be no one-day affair. Intelligence on precise locations had uncertainty built into it, and any strike would consist of multiple phases: destroying Iran’s air force and navy, destroying Iran’s anti-aircraft capability to guarantee total command of the skies, the attacks on the nuclear facilities themselves, analysis of the damage, perhaps a second wave, and of course additional attacks to deal with any attempted Iranian retaliation. The target set would be considerable, and would extend well beyond the targets directly related to the nuclear program, making such an operation no simple matter.

Second, Iran has the ability to respond in a number of ways. One is unleashing terrorist attacks worldwide via Hezbollah. But the most significant response would be blocking the Strait of Hormuz using either anti-ship missiles or naval mines. The latter are more threatening largely because the clearing operation could take a considerable period and it would be difficult to know when you had cleared all of the mines. Tankers and their loads are worth about $170 million at current prices, and that uncertainty could cause owners to refuse the trip. Oil exports could fall dramatically, and the effect on the global economy — particularly now amid the global financial crisis — could be absolutely devastating. Attacking Iran would be an air-sea battle, and could even include limited ground forces inserted to ensure that the nuclear facilities were destroyed.

The country most concerned with all of this is Israel. The Iranians had given every indication that they plan to build a nuclear capability and use it against Israel. Israel’s vulnerability to such a strike is enormous, and there are serious questions about Israel’s ability to use the threat of a counterstrike as a deterrent to such a strike. In our view, Iran is merely creating a system to guarantee regime survival, but given the tenor of Tehran’s statements, Israel cannot afford to take this view complacently.

Israel could unilaterally draw the United States into an airstrike on Iran. Were Israel to strike Iran by any means, it most likely would lack the ability to conduct an extended air campaign. And the United States could not suffer the consequences of airstrikes without the benefits of taking out Iran’s nuclear program. Apart from the political consequences, the U.S. Navy would be drawn into the suppression of Iranian naval capabilities in the Persian Gulf whether it wanted to or not simply to keep the Strait of Hormuz open. Even if Iran didn’t act to close off the strait, Washington would have to assume that it might, an eventuality it could not afford. So an Israeli attack would likely draw in the United States against Iran one way or another. The United States has had no appetite for such an eventuality, particularly since it considers a deliverable Iranian nuclear weapon a ways off. The U.S. alternative — in both administrations — was diplomatic.

Washington wanted to create a coalition of powers able to impose sanctions on Iran. At meetings over the summer, the Obama administration appears to have promised Israel “crippling” sanctions to prevent any unilateral Israel action. At an April G-8 meeting, it was decided that Iran must engage in serious negotiations on its nuclear program prior to the next G-8 meeting — on Sept. 24 — or face these sanctions.

The crippling sanctions foreseen were some sort of interruption of the flow of gasoline into Iran, which imports 40 percent of its supply despite being a net exporter of crude. Obviously, in order for this to work, all of the G-8 nations (and others) must participate, particularly Russia. Russia has the capacity to produce and transport all of Iran’s needs, not just its import requirements. If the Russians don’t participate, there are no sanctions.

The Russians announced weeks ago that they opposed new sanctions on Iran and would not participate in them. Moreover, they seemed to flout the ineffectiveness of any U.S. sanctions. With that, the diplomatic option on Iran was off the table. Russia is not eager to see Iran develop nuclear weapons, but it sees the United States as the greater threat at the moment. Moscow’s fundamental fear is that the United States — and Israel — will dramatically strengthen Ukraine, Georgia and other states in the FSU and on its periphery, and that Russia’s strategic goal of national security through pre-eminence in the region will be lost.

From the Russian point of view, the U.S. desire for Russian help with Iran is incompatible with the U.S. desire to pursue its own course in the FSU and countries like Poland. From the U.S. point of view, these were two entirely different matters that should be handled in a different venue.

[...]

American attention in the run-up to the Oct. 1 talks with Iran was focused by Israel. The Obama administration had adopted an interesting two-tier position on Israel. On the one hand, it was confronting Israel on halting settlement activity in the West Bank; on the other hand, it was making promises to Israel on Iran. The sense in Israel was that the Obama administration was altering Washington’s traditional support for Israel. Since Iran was a critical threat to Israel, and since Israel might not have a better chance to strike than now, the Obama administration began to realize that its diplomatic option had failed, and that the decision on war and peace with Iran was not in its hands but in Israel’s, since Israel was prepared to act unilaterally and draw the United States into a war. Given that the Obama diplomatic initiative had failed and that the administration’s pressure on Israel had created a sense of isolation in Israel, the situation could now well spiral out of control.

Although all of these things operated in different bureaucratic silos in Washington, and participants in each silo could suffer under the illusion that the issues were unrelated, the matters converged hurriedly last week. Uncertain what leverage it had over Israel, the United States decided to reach out to the Russians. Washington sought a way to indicate to the Russians that it was prepared to deal with Russia in a different way while simultaneously giving away as little as possible.

[...]

Americans got a different atmosphere at meetings between U.S. President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitri Medvedev at the United Nations next week. But the sine qua non for Russian help on Iran is Russia’s sphere of influence in the FSU. The public relations aspect of how this sphere is announced is not critical. That the U.S. agrees to it is.

This is the foreign policy test all U.S. presidents face. Obama now has three choices.

1) He can make the deal with Russia. But every day that passes, Russia is creating the reality of domination in the FSU, so its price for a deal will continue to rise from simply recognizing their sphere of influence to extending it to neutralizing Poland.

2) He can select the military option of an air campaign against Iran. But this means accepting the risk to maritime traffic in the Persian Gulf and the potentially devastating impact on the global economy if oil exports through the Strait of Hormuz are impacted significantly.

3) He can wait to see how things unfold, and place overwhelming pressure on Israel not to attack. But this means finding a way to place the pressure: Israel in 2009 does not have the dependence on the United States it had in 1973.