Biden quoted as saying that Israel will have to reconcile itself to a nuclear Iran

Biden quoted as saying that Israel will have to reconcile itself to a nuclear Iran

www.haaretz.com

Democratic vice-presidential candidate Joe Biden was quoted Monday as telling senior Israeli officials behind closed doors that the Jewish state will have to reconcile itself to a nuclear Iran.

In the unsourced report, Army Radio also quoted Biden as saying that he opposed "opening a additional military and diplomatic front."

Biden, chairman of the powerful Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has long been considered strongly pro-Israel. His nomination as Barack Obama's running mate had been expected to shore up the Democrats' strength with U.S. Jewish voters.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Biden to Israel - put some ice on that!

www.haaretz.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Its about time someone saw some sense in the US heirarchy. To be honest, Israel are way ahead of the nuclear game compared to Iran so really have no more to fear than the West does against the East. No-one should have a monopoly in any weapom system, a counter system should always be encouraged, if only to keep the peace.

This will be one of the reasons why Obama will not be your next commander and cheif (They) want this war and (They) want a puppet

reply to post by Wotan


I'd have to agree that it is about time someone started making sense in foreign policy...but it is for this reason that I think the Democrats will lose...rationality does not win votes in this world of ours anymore...

"To jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war."
Winston Churchill

He must have hated freedom...that appeaser.

Biden quickly shows his true democrat colors and philosophy - as an appeaser instead of the "attack dog" the dems tried to make him out to be. Palin isobviously a much tougher person.

Originally posted by centurion1211
Biden quickly shows his true democrat colors and philosophy - as an appeaser instead of the "attack dog" the dems tried to make him out to be. Palin isobviously a much tougher person.

You know, this whole "apeasement" thing has gotten beyond being incredibly retarded...

Situation 1: We don't negociate with Iran and:
1a. They continue to attempt to acquire nuclear technology, we attack them, Bush Doctrine-style, and so begins WW3.
1b. Because no one will give them any form of respect, they sell nuclear technologies to terrorists, who use it and so begins WW3.
1c. They acquire nuclear technologies just like the other nations we told bad better not and suddenly it becomes a non-issue. kinda like N. Korea, because no one is stupid enough to attack a nuclear power.

Situation 2: We negociate with Iran, they they are forced into signing the NNPT and:
2a. They act like every other civilised nuclear power and don't actually bomb anyone else...
2b. They follow "the rhetoric" and attack Israel, and so begins WW3.
2c. Israel attacks Iran for disrupting their regional dominance, and so begins WW3.

I think 1c and 2a are probably the best possible outcomes...the better being 2a... End of the day, its about regional leaders trying to become world leaders in a world that has, for too long in their opinion, been Americentric. Unipolar order is not stable...especially not for those who are constantly shat upon by the leaders.

Iran is a signatory to the non proliferation treaty and thus is allowed to develop nuclear energy, Russia has built Iran's nuclear plants. Saudi Arabia, UAE, Libya, Algeria and Kuwait have all started building their nuclear plants and therefore Israel will be surrounded by nuclear powers in the future. The difference between Iran and the other countries is that Iran is an independent country that has achieved many technological and industrial successes and it is not a puppet.
It is not about appeasement, the only appeasers here are the yanks and the Europeans. India, Japan and all of Irans neighbours have no problem with Iran's nuclear projects, so why should any one else? Ahmadinejad has stated in an interview in Rome that Iran will not wipe Israel off the map, Israel has wiped itself off the map because after 911 the world has come to see what Zionists are all about, he also said that we should accept it as news that he is giving the world. The fact is that when Putin said that the US has brought the world back to the middle ages you need to think seriously about what he meant. We have a super power that has no sense of human dignity, with a population that by and large would be very happy to nuke any country it sees fit and has no basic need for a valid reason to do so, this country is full of religious nuts that welcome the nuking of over countries whilst lobbying to bring back stoning for women seeking abortion...now the world is watching and wandering what will become of this super power if it is not stopped now that there still are those that are able to remember what being civilised and cultured means. I don't mean to offend any one but put yourself in the shoes of non US countries and watching Mrs Rice trot around the globe threatening to send third world countries back to the stone age unless they do as they say...would you be more concerned about the US or Iran? Would you want to incorporate US values in your country? Contrary to popular belief people around the world are far more cultured than certainly the yanks, look at afghans many speak 3 or 4 languages, go to Iraq and people will come out of their mud huts speaking at least Arabic and English, most Indians are at least bilingual...small educational budgets much better results than here in the West....we are going backwards while they go forward, we think we are better because we have arms and we can bully everyone else....but wouldn't you rather be intelligent and cultured? I would rather live in a cultured and civilized country than in a cess pit of greed, stupidity and immorality, regardless of the wealth within that country.

Maybe thier is some truth to what Baird had said on the BBC...."Iran has won"....

I thought he had said it in order to aid negots. with Iran when our Ambassador was in talks with Iran.

From the same article...


"As recently as July 2008, in a Foreign Relations hearing, Senator Biden reiterated his long-held view on this subject and stated that "Iran's acquisition of a nuclear weapon would dramatically destabilize an already unstable region and probably fuel a nuclear arms race in the region. It is profoundly in our interest to prevent that from happening,? the statement said. "


So which is it?

[edit on 1-9-2008 by mhc_70]

Originally posted by mabus325

Biden quoted as saying that Israel will have to reconcile itself to a nuclear Iran

www.haaretz.com

Democratic vice-presidential candidate Joe Biden was quoted Monday as telling senior Israeli officials behind closed doors that the Jewish state will have to reconcile itself to a nuclear Iran.

In the unsourced report, Army Radio also quoted Biden as saying that he opposed "opening a additional military and diplomatic front."

Biden, chairman of the powerful Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has long been considered strongly pro-Israel. His nomination as Barack Obama's running mate had been expected to shore up the Democrats' strength with U.S. Jewish voters.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Although this is not much of a better source than the Haaretz one it is worth taking a look:

ABC News

Please take the time to read this if this story interests you.

That Jewish vote is out the door now, along with all their money and the people who depend on it.
I must say it didn't take him long to stick his foot in his mouth, Obama should consider nipping this one in the bud, kick him to the curb with his pastor and grovel at the feet of Hillary, only chance he's got left.

Originally posted by madhatr137

Situation 2: We negociate with Iran, they they are forced into signing the NNPT and:
2a. They act like every other civilised nuclear power and don't actually bomb anyone else...

Sadly naive.

First, negotiations don't force anyone to do anything. Remember North Korea and how Jimmy Carter "negotiated" with them to not have nuclear weapons? Guess who has nuclear weapons.

Last, iran already does not act "like every other civilised nuclear power" and threatens other countries with annihilation. What's to stop Iran from givng a nuke to a terrorist group to do their dirty work for them so they can later claim it wasn't them. And iran is run by suicidal radical muslims that don't care if they die and who they take with them on their quest for martyrdom.

Appeasement is a lot to pin your hopes and life on IMO.

Sic 'em Biden, sic 'em ...



[edit on 9/1/2008 by centurion1211]

I think, due to the fact that each situation has 3 outcomes ranging from good, to bad, to worse, one could hardly call my analysis of what could happen in either situation naive.

What is naive is to assume that the only possible outcome from negociations and a nuclear Iran would be annihilation.

You said it yourself. 30 years ago Carter negociated with N. Korea, they're now nuclear. Have they bombed anyone? No. Have they gotten a bit more respect on the world stage? Yes.

Originally posted by centurion1211
What's to stop Iran from givng a nuke to a terrorist group to do their dirty work for them so they can later claim it wasn't them.

There are ways to trace the source of a nuclear weapon's fuel.
I guarantee you, if Iran develops nuclear WMD, gave one to a terrorist, and the terrorist nuked Manhattan, it would only be a matter of time before the US govt knew the source of the bomb's fuel came from Iran and Iran would be completely obliterated.

Iran is not going to give a nuke to some rogue terrorist. That is a complete fantasy.



[edit on 2-9-2008 by Schaden]

Originally posted by mhc_70

From the same article...


"As recently as July 2008, in a Foreign Relations hearing, Senator Biden reiterated his long-held view on this subject and stated that "Iran's acquisition of a nuclear weapon would dramatically destabilize an already unstable region and probably fuel a nuclear arms race in the region. It is profoundly in our interest to prevent that from happening,? the statement said. "


So which is it?

I see no contradiction in his statements. He doesn't want them to get nuclear weapons, he thinks it would be bad for several reasons, and it's in our interest from preventing that from happening. But he probably thinks, as do I, that it is inevitable.

Iran will one day have nuclear weapons. You can bet on that.



[edit on 2-9-2008 by Schaden]