Biden: US not stand in Israel's way on Iran

Originally posted by audas

Originally posted by dooper
A nuclear armed Iran is unacceptable.

Russia and the US agree on that.

So - since Israel was the one threatened with extinction - turn them loose!

Simple problems only require simple solutions.

The Iranian Mullah government seems to be begging for destruction. Let them have it.

Now, if we could just let South Korea . . .

Short memory there tiger - the US and Russia may agree on a return to the table to discuss nuclear disarmament - and Russia may not want to see proliferation - however that is a long way from accepting a US or Israeli invasion of Iran.

Remember two things - Russia and Iran are infinitely better at politics that the US - the US barely has a machivellian (in the true sense of the term) in their collective diplomatic body. The Russians have also stated very clearly and emphatically that there will be repurcussions for the Georgia trouble cause be the US. Further it has been made abundantly clear last week that Russia fullfilled its cotnractual obligations agreed to last year with Iran to supply the s-300.

Russia will supply and arm Iran with whatever it needs as will China - China would not be adverse to sending troops - Iran can be resupplied through the caspian with whatever it needs from either of these countries - HENCE AMERICAS ATTEMPTED COUP -

Israel goes into Iran - you can kiss good-bye to your entire lifestyle - a Hamburger in the US will be 300 dollars - and that is how you will be defeated - your lifestyle will kill you.

The AMERICAN PEOPLE don't have a Machiavellian bone in their collective bodies, no, but the American government certainly does. You need look no farther than Kissinger and Brzezinski. That the government of the US is very realist and pragmatic vis-a-vis the very naive and idealistic populace is exactly why conspiracy websites like this exist- because Americans are by and large too dumb to understand power politics.

I mean, seriously, Kissinger is seen as a supervillan on these boards, when the guy had probably the best and most rational view of international relations in the US since World War II.

No, if it came down to a the populace of the US voting on policies vs the populace of Russia voting on policies, Russia would obviously win. But at the top? Nah.

Originally posted by SuperViking

Originally posted by audas

Originally posted by dooper
A nuclear armed Iran is unacceptable.

Russia and the US agree on that.

So - since Israel was the one threatened with extinction - turn them loose!

Simple problems only require simple solutions.

The Iranian Mullah government seems to be begging for destruction. Let them have it.

Now, if we could just let South Korea . . .

Short memory there tiger - the US and Russia may agree on a return to the table to discuss nuclear disarmament - and Russia may not want to see proliferation - however that is a long way from accepting a US or Israeli invasion of Iran.

Remember two things - Russia and Iran are infinitely better at politics that the US - the US barely has a machivellian (in the true sense of the term) in their collective diplomatic body. The Russians have also stated very clearly and emphatically that there will be repurcussions for the Georgia trouble cause be the US. Further it has been made abundantly clear last week that Russia fullfilled its cotnractual obligations agreed to last year with Iran to supply the s-300.

Russia will supply and arm Iran with whatever it needs as will China - China would not be adverse to sending troops - Iran can be resupplied through the caspian with whatever it needs from either of these countries - HENCE AMERICAS ATTEMPTED COUP -

Israel goes into Iran - you can kiss good-bye to your entire lifestyle - a Hamburger in the US will be 300 dollars - and that is how you will be defeated - your lifestyle will kill you.

The AMERICAN PEOPLE don't have a Machiavellian bone in their collective bodies, no, but the American government certainly does. You need look no farther than Kissinger and Brzezinski. That the government of the US is very realist and pragmatic vis-a-vis the very naive and idealistic populace is exactly why conspiracy websites like this exist- because Americans are by and large too dumb to understand power politics.

I mean, seriously, Kissinger is seen as a supervillan on these boards, when the guy had probably the best and most rational view of international relations in the US since World War II.

No, if it came down to a the populace of the US voting on policies vs the populace of Russia voting on policies, Russia would obviously win. But at the top? Nah.

Except that in replying to me you have clearly misread my post - I specifically said in the TRUE meaning of Machiavelli.

Further singling out a single player does not render your entire diplomatic core for all time somehow brilliant - it merely highlights the dearth of capable players - especially since he was allowed to get away with it - and more importantly you should realise by now that Kissingers primary role was to look after Israel - so hardly a relevant response.

In reply however - the bumblings of everyone from Albright to Rumsfeild and even McNamara have smacked of utilitarian force oriented big stick small carrot policies - this is fundamental and obvious.

The US does not have a deft touch in its entire arsenal - THAT is why we all know so much about how corrupt they are, how Israel has managed to hijack their entire foriegn policy, how incapable they are of subtetly - sorry -

One other point on Kissinger - he was also a meglomaniac - all he was interested in was his own personal career and power (of greater service to Israel) - everything he did was by the sledge - if he was ANY GOOD AT ALL - if he was even remotely Machivellian - then we would not even know his name....


Worth asking - Have you even read "The Prince" ? - be honest


[edit on 7-7-2009 by audas]

Hahaha oh Biden, America has told plenty of sovereign nations what to do.
Told Germany in 1918 they could not have a real military; told Japan they could only have a self-defence force; told Vietnam and North Korea and Cuba they could not be communist; told Iraq they could not punish Kuqait for stealing their oil; told Iran it needed a pro-western government; told countless S American nations they could not nationalise their industries; told Afghanistan the Taliban regime was too harsh; told Iraq they could not have weapons of mass destruction which they did not have; told Iran they could not have nuclear power; told Canada the rules for selling OUR lumber, and trade tariffs in general...

Need I go on...

I have no doubts any more that the next war WILL be Iran and it WILL happen soon. Check out the map of military bases... just where - oh -where are they surrounding..?
www.newgreatgame.com...

"resolute in opposing the spread of nuclear arms because I am from a country that experienced Hiroshima and Nagasaki".

I am 100% positive that Japan is the only country who could have experienced Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Originally posted by audas

Originally posted by SuperViking

Originally posted by audas

Originally posted by dooper
A nuclear armed Iran is unacceptable.

Russia and the US agree on that.

So - since Israel was the one threatened with extinction - turn them loose!

Simple problems only require simple solutions.

The Iranian Mullah government seems to be begging for destruction. Let them have it.

Now, if we could just let South Korea . . .

Short memory there tiger - the US and Russia may agree on a return to the table to discuss nuclear disarmament - and Russia may not want to see proliferation - however that is a long way from accepting a US or Israeli invasion of Iran.

Remember two things - Russia and Iran are infinitely better at politics that the US - the US barely has a machivellian (in the true sense of the term) in their collective diplomatic body. The Russians have also stated very clearly and emphatically that there will be repurcussions for the Georgia trouble cause be the US. Further it has been made abundantly clear last week that Russia fullfilled its cotnractual obligations agreed to last year with Iran to supply the s-300.

Russia will supply and arm Iran with whatever it needs as will China - China would not be adverse to sending troops - Iran can be resupplied through the caspian with whatever it needs from either of these countries - HENCE AMERICAS ATTEMPTED COUP -

Israel goes into Iran - you can kiss good-bye to your entire lifestyle - a Hamburger in the US will be 300 dollars - and that is how you will be defeated - your lifestyle will kill you.

The AMERICAN PEOPLE don't have a Machiavellian bone in their collective bodies, no, but the American government certainly does. You need look no farther than Kissinger and Brzezinski. That the government of the US is very realist and pragmatic vis-a-vis the very naive and idealistic populace is exactly why conspiracy websites like this exist- because Americans are by and large too dumb to understand power politics.

I mean, seriously, Kissinger is seen as a supervillan on these boards, when the guy had probably the best and most rational view of international relations in the US since World War II.

No, if it came down to a the populace of the US voting on policies vs the populace of Russia voting on policies, Russia would obviously win. But at the top? Nah.

Except that in replying to me you have clearly misread my post - I specifically said in the TRUE meaning of Machiavelli.

Further singling out a single player does not render your entire diplomatic core for all time somehow brilliant - it merely highlights the dearth of capable players - especially since he was allowed to get away with it - and more importantly you should realise by now that Kissingers primary role was to look after Israel - so hardly a relevant response.

In reply however - the bumblings of everyone from Albright to Rumsfeild and even McNamara have smacked of utilitarian force oriented big stick small carrot policies - this is fundamental and obvious.

The US does not have a deft touch in its entire arsenal - THAT is why we all know so much about how corrupt they are, how Israel has managed to hijack their entire foriegn policy, how incapable they are of subtetly - sorry -

One other point on Kissinger - he was also a meglomaniac - all he was interested in was his own personal career and power (of greater service to Israel) - everything he did was by the sledge - if he was ANY GOOD AT ALL - if he was even remotely Machivellian - then we would not even know his name....


Worth asking - Have you even read "The Prince" ? - be honest


[edit on 7-7-2009 by audas]

Whoops, sorry. I forgot this was still a conspiracy site. Thought there might be intelligent life here after all for a second, my bad.

With Russia and China you have to look at what is in it for them, each nation will act in it's own best interest and I think both those countries will be rubbing their hands at the prospect of a United States in it's death throes, not that I think that is where we are at yet.

The idea that the whole world is against the USA and UK is a fantasy, firstly all the major European powers have been falling over themselves to be the USA's new best friend. It will be interesting to see what happens when the Lisbon Treaty is ratified and we get a new EU President, will it be a staunch Atlanticist like Tony Blair or a "staunch Europhile" like Felipe Gonzales? The previous quotes are a shot at sarcasm, Felipe Gonzales is as much an Atlanticist as anyone else... basically the people with the power in the EU at the moment are putting their money on the USA. Why? maybe shared values stand for more than we thought.

The reality is that the USA is still a powerful, dangerous nation and is still seen as a beacon of democracy by many, looking at the IMF list of advanced economies I can't see many of them turning their backs on the USA just yet. The UK being the EU's fourth biggest contributor and having the third highest GDP would I believe limit the chances of the rest of the EU turning on us.

Originally posted by najapi
With Russia and China you have to look at what is in it for them, each nation will act in it's own best interest and I think both those countries will be rubbing their hands at the prospect of a United States in it's death throes, not that I think that is where we are at yet.

The idea that the whole world is against the USA and UK is a fantasy, firstly all the major European powers have been falling over themselves to be the USA's new best friend. It will be interesting to see what happens when the Lisbon Treaty is ratified and we get a new EU President, will it be a staunch Atlanticist like Tony Blair or a "staunch Europhile" like Felipe Gonzales? The previous quotes are a shot at sarcasm, Felipe Gonzales is as much an Atlanticist as anyone else... basically the people with the power in the EU at the moment are putting their money on the USA. Why? maybe shared values stand for more than we thought.

The reality is that the USA is still a powerful, dangerous nation and is still seen as a beacon of democracy by many, looking at the IMF list of advanced economies I can't see many of them turning their backs on the USA just yet. The UK being the EU's fourth biggest contributor and having the third highest GDP would I believe limit the chances of the rest of the EU turning on us.

The UK has the highest debt of any country - including the US which people are so fond of bringing up - the French and Germans were absolutely appalled the UK's unilateralism on Iraq and have shown UNEQUIVOCALLY a willingness to leave UK high and dry. If the UK were to join an invasion of Iran - you can put money on it that the EU will not assist them - France and Germany are connected by land to Turkey - UK is an Island state which is virtually unassailable - your theory that the EU is falling all over itself to be the US's best freind is also bumpkin - the EU is clearly siding with the BRIC nations for tilt at shifting from the US dollar reserve - the EU sees the demise of the US as clearly as ANYONE adn as the worlds most powerful union and trading bloc - including militarily - it is quite the reverse.

A temporary attitude shift in the EU means squat for the longer term strategic outlook of the major EU players (France - Germany) and one need only take a passing glance at the repudiation of the UK in dealing with the financial crisis to see how well the UK is valued - very short thrift.

The UK's PRIMARY means was financial services - this has been totally decimated - it was always a precarious balance with Frankfurt and this will tip the balance entirely - the only other significant sector is primary resources - go to war with Islam - and this is finished - Nigeria is the only place left - and that will be gone faster than you can say delta rebels.

The Straights will be blocked and the UK will be in meltdown - if Russia sides with Iran then Europe can say good bye to its gas supplies - no CHANCE ON EARTH they will cripple their entire Union simply to show solidarity with two nations they have shown outright contempt for - repeatedly - over the past 12 months to two years.

Sarkosky's napoleonic moment in the sun will end faster that you can say boo if he was to join an invasion of Iran - they would burn him in his bed - and Germany would not touch it with a barge pole.....qed.

Originally posted by Ridhya
Hahaha oh Biden, America has told plenty of sovereign nations what to do.
Told Germany in 1918 they could not have a real military; told Japan they could only have a self-defence force; told Vietnam and North Korea and Cuba they could not be communist; told Iraq they could not punish Kuqait for stealing their oil; told Iran it needed a pro-western government; told countless S American nations they could not nationalise their industries; told Afghanistan the Taliban regime was too harsh; told Iraq they could not have weapons of mass destruction which they did not have; told Iran they could not have nuclear power; told Canada the rules for selling OUR lumber, and trade tariffs in general...

Need I go on...

I have no doubts any more that the next war WILL be Iran and it WILL happen soon. Check out the map of military bases... just where - oh -where are they surrounding..?
www.newgreatgame.com...

"resolute in opposing the spread of nuclear arms because I am from a country that experienced Hiroshima and Nagasaki".

I am 100% positive that Japan is the only country who could have experienced Hiroshima and Nagasaki

I think you'll find the treaty was more like 1919, that the US only entered the war in the very final stages, had no real desire to punish Germany as they were only interested in trading partners and it was the Europeans who placed these restrictions on the Germans - not the Americans....Further the Germans after the first world war retained a significant military (no aircraft) of well over 100,000 men and a large naval fleet - were you perhaps thinking of a different war ?

reply to post by audas

There was criticism of the UK 'Keynesian' policies by a small number of German politicians, both Germany and France have since announced massive bailout plans (France pledged 360Bn Euros at the end of 2008 to assist French institutions and promote inter-bank lending).

I wouldn't dispute the UK has a high rate of debt, but depending on who's figures you read this isn't as high as some countries when analysed as a percentage of GDP, admittedly these figures will have changed this year but I expect the biggest change will be to internal debt, not external. See one example here:

www.visualeconomics.com...

Now you can criticise the source of that info but if you can provide the figures you are working from I'd be interested as it wouldn't surprise me in the least that the UK is up near the top of the list. I'm certainly not going to defend the US and UK financial systems, but I didn't hear any of the many other countries that have also been hit by this economic sledgehammer speaking out before the bubble burst.

I would question your point on how the French and Germans "have shown UNEQUIVOCALLY a willingness to leave UK high and dry", in early Feb 2003 the EU passed a resolution that backed military intervention should Iraq refuse to offer "unconditional cooperation"... now let's not be naive, we all know that the majority of the populations of these EU countries were against an invasion of Iraq, as was the majority of the UK population, but do you really believe that the EU expected Iraq to offer "unconditional cooperation" in February 2003?

You mention BRICs, how is the EU siding with them? Only a couple of days ago Jean-Claude Trichet backed the dollar and even Medvedev admitted there was currently no alternative to the dollar. Is that just public posturing?

I'm interested in your opinion of what the longer term strategic outlook of the major EU countries is, I would anticipate there is a desire to establish the EU as a viable world power, with centralised political control and the ability to project itself militarily when required. I can't see why that necessarily has to be at the expense of the US and UK.

Stop over quoting!! You are clogging up all the threads.

Originally posted by ElloAll
the Khazars were always a blood-thirsty people expelled wherever they go -- like aliens without human emotions,

So they are sub-human eh? Makes those dirty jew bastards easier to kill if they are just apes and pigs and not really human. :shk:

You are confused. It's the so-called palestinians who are the blood-thirsty bunch that are expelled wherever they go. Jordan. Syria. Egypt has closed it's borders with the Gaza due to the piss poor behavior of the so called 'palestinians' . No one wants them because they can't behave themselves.

Black September

As for being 'blood-thirsty'. The so-called palestinians can't afford peace. It would cut off their perpetual victimhood income of billions in donated 'aid'.

[edit on 7/8/2009 by FlyersFan]