Brzezinski - US Must Shoot Down Israelis If They Attack Iran

Originally posted by VirginiaGreen

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
reply to post by finemanm

 

Listen man, I'm all for your point of view, however I must ask one simple question: How was the state of Israel formed? Oh sh--....looks like the US fudged up.

Israel has been a nation in the same place for thousands of years so how did the U.S. form it? Oh you mean when in 1948 the U.N. gave the Jews back some of their land that was stolen from them by the Arabs. I remember now.

Now go read ancient Roman history oh wise one and read how they controlled the Jewish state of Israel, Constantine ring a bell? You know, The one who could have spared Jesus only to convert his whole empire to Christianity when he realized what a mistake he had made.

Now go to Israel and see the ancient Jewish sites that are older than any other sites. There are twice as many ancient Jewish and Christian sites in Israel, allot older than any Arab ones.

Originally posted by KneonKnight

Originally posted by mkross1983

Originally posted by novacs4me
It would be wrong to assume that the Arab world has nothing to gain by the removal of the threat of a nuclear Iran. [

Iran DOES NOT have nuclear weapons.

DOES NOT.

YET.

Try to keep up.

Power plants do not equal nukes.

That is all.

[edit on 21-9-2009 by mkross1983]

Fixed.

Uh, yeah!?! My dog is fixed, too.

Zbig Brzezinski is one of the smartest most educated man on the planet. I'm with him on this.

reply to post by UmbraSumus

Thank you very much for your reply. Starred your post. My apologies for the delay in responding; work unfortunately intervened...

So, as there was a Status of Forces Agreement between the US and Iraq, then as you say, it looks like the US military there would be expected to respond to any Iraqi request for support in the event of unauthorized 3rd-nation military crossing its borders (or entering its airspace).

I did some digging on the SOFA and found that there was supposed to be a referendum on it by the end of July this year. Some sources say that without that referendum, the SOFA is not ratified and is null and void. Others say that the agreement stands and that the referendum only gave Iraqis the right to choose whether to extend the SOFA or withdraw it, hastening US forces' exit from the territory.

The reason I've mentioned this is that it seems yet another case of muddy waters in the middle east and leaves us in doubt as to what the true position is. But I appreciate that sometimes, such a state is not without its advantages for both sides. For the time being, though, I guess we can work on the principle that as the SOFA has not been officially declared null and void, then it's still in place, so your original statement would hold good. All the same, what Mr Z.B. had to say still suggests a slightly different slant on things and makes me wonder what message he was really sending out -- and to whom.

Just as an aside, during my digging around for SOFA info, I realized that the famous shoe-throwing incident occurred at the press conference following its signing.

Originally posted by JustMike

All the same, what Mr Z.B. had to say still suggests a slightly different slant on things and makes me wonder what message he was really sending out -- and to whom.

Just as an aside, during my digging around for SOFA info, I realized that the famous shoe-throwing incident occurred at the press conference following its signing.

I wonder do different administrations use `former` advisor's tactically, to say things more bluntly than they could themselves.
A good cop / bad cop kind of thing.

I still can`t get over Brzezinski mentioning the USS Liberty .......

Was there anything more , made of this comment in the MSM i.e FOX/ CNN etc ?

reply to post by UmbraSumus

Yes, I believe that it's not an unusual ploy to use former-admin people in this way. Even former presidents/prime ministers. As we know, such high-level people has been used as unofficial envoys, as in the recent case of Bill Clinton's trip to Nth Korea to win the release of those two journalists. I'd love to know what his "unofficial" message to the regime was.

It seems that the msm haven't made much of Mr Z.B.'s statements. But then, aside from them being public statements I doubt that they were intended for the public anyway. Also, the analytical ability of most msm like Fox is dubious at best, and about as unbiased as a boxer's cornerman telling him how great he's doing -- about ten seconds before his vastly superior opponent finally lands the punch that knocks him cold in the next round.

They are probably looking to develop closer ties with Iran so they'll agree to supply the Nabucco gas pipeline to Europe and at the same time divert investment and resources from the pakistan pipeline and thereby a supply to china . Also, in the process putting them in direct competition with Russia and attaining that independence and diversity from those Russian supplies they have been trying to obtain for years. They (US) might lose influence with Israel, but Iran may re denominate its bourse sales back to the dollar in such a deal . Which is a preferential state of affairs for the US as a whole , and a detrimental one for China , Russia and Israel. If these events should begin to look like they are going to happen , you may see Iran in a good bargaining position as the east competes with the west for the Iranian fossil fuels. Maybe they might even get an invite to the SCO and a more reliable supply of missile deterrents from Russia. But an Israeli strike on Iran is a US strike on Iran effectively . They have their eyes on China and Russia, they do not want to get their hands dirty fighting Israel's wars against a nation they want greater ties with. That's old bygone neocon policy , these days Israel may not be that suitable of an ally anymore.

[edit on 24-9-2009 by Drexl]

And the East are fighting back :


China Opposes Iran Sanctions Sought by U.S.

BEIJING — China will not support increased sanctions on Iran as a way to curb its nuclear program, a government spokeswoman said Thursday.

Although China has generally opposed the use of sanctions, the announcement is sure to complicate President Obama’s efforts to impose tougher penalties on Iran, should international talks over Tehran’s nuclear ambitions, scheduled for Oct. 1, fail to make headway.

“We always believe that sanctions and pressure are not the way out,” said Jiang Yu, a foreign ministry spokeswoman, during a news conference. “At present, it is not conducive to diplomatic efforts.”

On Wednesday, the White House savored success after Russia, a longtime opponent of economic sanctions, said it would consider tough new sanctions against Iran.

As a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, China has veto power over any decision by the body to impose sanctions.

www.nytimes.com...

They always thought China would automatically go along with Russia. China has never wanted to be the lone veto . Except this time . So, all that diplomacy, all those missile deals .. with Russia came to no gain for the US . Russia goes along with the sanctions, at what price.. we don't know', but it is a price that gets the US nowhere while China unexpectedly casts it's veto . They done a deal no doubt, and the US fell for it, hook line and sinker.

edit : quote tag inserted

[edit on 24-9-2009 by Drexl]