This was the first time a senior Obama administration official left Israeli the military option against Iran's nuclear sites.
I wouldn't see this as a change in the Obamas plan
Crazy uncle Joe often 'misspeaks"
Quoting: mathetes
I don't think so, better Biden states the obvious first to get a feel for public criticism. Obama can retract anything Biden states should the criticism be overwhelmingly negitive.
Good move by the administration and good luck to them!
~GAIA~ I HATE mornings ... User ID: 718647 7/5/2009 1:15 PM
July 5, 2009, 5:51 PM (GMT+02:00)
US Vice President Joseph Biden: Israel must determine for itself.
In an interview with ABC's George Stephanoupolos taped Saturday, vice president Joseph Biden said in answer to a question: "Look, Israel can determine for itself — it's a sovereign nation — what's in their interest and what they decide to do relative to Iran and anyone else." Whether we agree or not? The interviewer asked. "Whether we agree or not," said the vice president.
This was the first time a senior Obama administration official left Israeli the military option against Iran's nuclear sites.
it would mean that the administration has withdrawn its veto against Israel's resort to military action to curtail Iran's drive for a bomb before diplomacy has been fully tested.
He went on to say: "They're entitled to do that. Any sovereign nation is entitled to do that. But there is no pressure from any nation that's going to alter our behavior as to how to proceed. What we believe is in the national interest of the United States, which we, coincidentally, believe is also in the interest of Israel and the whole world.
"And so there are separate issues. If the Netanyahu government decides to take a course of action different than the one being pursued now, that is their sovereign right to do that. That is not our choice. "
Stephanopoulos persisted: But just to be clear here, if the Israelis decide Iran is an existential threat, they have to take out the nuclear program, militarily the United States will not stand in the way?
Biden: "Look, we cannot dictate to another sovereign nation what they can and cannot do.
Interviewer: You say we can't dictate, but we can, if we choose to, deny over-flight rights here in Iraq. We can stand in the way of a military strike.
Biden: "I'm not going to speculate, George, on those issues, other than to say Israel has a right to determine what's in its interests, and we have a right and we will determine what's in our interests."
DEBKAfile's intelligence sources: The last three days from Friday, June 3, have seen a spate of reports all pointing in one direction: Israel's air and sea capabilities for dealing with Iran and its military nuclear program. US vice president Biden's statement, unless it is withdrawn, looks like the Obama administration's seal on a possible Israeli attack for pre-empting a nuclear-armed Iran. "Israel can determine for itself whether or not to bomb Iran's nuclear program," he said.
Until now, administration officials referred a potential Israeli bombardment of Iran as a disaster whose consequences were impossible to predict.
Now the ball is squarely in Binyamin Netanyahu's court, whether because Washington hopes Israel will pull the Iranian chestnut out of the fire, or to call Israel's bluff. Netanyahu and defense minister Ehud Barak are now free of America restraints for backing up their statements about the need to pre-empt a nuclear-armed Iran before the Islamic Republic poses an existential threat to Israel.
Asked if Americans would again put their lives on the line again if violence flares back up in Iraq, Biden flatly said "no."
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 689963
Green light??? '..what can grow without rain..
..what can burn for years without burn...
..stone can grow without rain...
..and only love can burn for years without end...'
This was the first time a senior Obama administration official left Israeli the military option against Iran's nuclear sites.
I wouldn't see this as a change in the Obamas plan
Crazy uncle Joe often 'misspeaks"
I don't think so, better Biden states the obvious first to get a feel for public criticism. Obama can retract anything Biden states should the criticism be overwhelmingly negitive.
Good move by the administration and good luck to them!
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 385288
My good wishes and luck to the Obama administration also!
~GAIA~ I HATE mornings ... User ID: 718647 7/5/2009 1:34 PM
>>>>>> U.S. Vice President Gives Israel Green Light to Attack Iran <<<<<<<<
[link to www.israelnationalnews.com] '..what can grow without rain..
..what can burn for years without burn...
..stone can grow without rain...
..and only love can burn for years without end...'
Naval forces sending missils from an atomic sub from the Mediterranean
Open skies all over Saudi Arab....and we have two fronts already. '..what can grow without rain..
..what can burn for years without burn...
..stone can grow without rain...
..and only love can burn for years without end...'
Naval forces sending missils from an atomic sub from the Mediterranean
Open skies all over Saudi Arab....and we have two fronts already.
Quoting: ~GAIA~
Do try to contain the maniacal ebullience a tad and remember - unintended consequences. I thought I'd beat the inevitibility of death to death just a little bit.
It was in this context that Glaspie had her first meeting with Saddam Hussein on July 25, 1990. Glaspie herself had requested the meeting, saying she had an urgent message for the Iraqi president from US President George H. W. Bush (Bush Senior). In her two years as Ambassador to Iraq, it was Glaspie's first private audience with Saddam Hussein. It was also to be her last. A partial transcript of the meeting is as follows:
US Ambassador Glaspie:
"I have direct instructions from President Bush to improve our relations with Iraq. We have considerable sympathy for your quest for higher oil prices, the immediate cause of your confrontation with Kuwait. (pause) As you know, I have lived here for years and admire your extraordinary efforts to rebuild your country (after the Iran-Iraq war). We know you need funds. We understand that, and our opinion is that you should have the opportunity to rebuild your country. (pause) We can see that you have deployed massive numbers of troops in the south. Normally that would be none of our business, but when this happens in the context of your other threats against Kuwait, then it would be reasonable for us to be concerned. For this reason, I have received an instruction to ask you, in the spirit of friendship - not confrontation - regarding your intentions. Why are your troops massed so very close to Kuwait's borders?"
President Saddam Hussein:
"As you know, for years now I have made every effort to reach a settlement on our dispute with Kuwait. There is to be a meeting in two days; I am prepared to give negotiations only one more brief chance. (pause) When we (the Iraqis) meet (with the Kuwaitis) and we see there is hope, then nothing will happen. But if we are unable to find a solution, then it will be natural that Iraq will not accept death."
US Ambassador Glaspie:
"What solution would be acceptable?"
President Saddam Hussein:
"If we could keep the whole of the Shatt al Arab - our strategic goal in our war with Iran - we will make concessions (to the Kuwaitis). But if we are forced to choose between keeping half of the Shatt and the whole of Iraq (which, in Iraq's view, includes Kuwait), then we will give up all of the Shatt to defend our claims on Kuwait to keep the whole of Iraq in the shape we wish it to be. (pause) What is the United States' opinion on this?"
US Ambassador Glaspie:
"We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary (of State James) Baker has directed me to emphasise the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960s, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America."
(Saddam smiles)
At a Washington press conference called the next day (July 26, 1990), US State Department spokesperson Margaret Tutweiler was asked by journalists:
"Has the United States sent any type of diplomatic message to the Iraqis about putting 30,000 troops on the border with Kuwait? Has there been any type of protest communicated from the United States government?"
To which Tutweiler responded
"I'm entirely unaware of any such protest."
On July 31, 1990, two days before the Iraqi invasion, John Kelly, Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, testified to Congress that the
"United States has no commitment to defend Kuwait and the US has no intention of defending Kuwait if it is attacked by Iraq."
The trap had been baited very cleverly by Glaspie, reinforced by Tutweiler's and Kelly's supporting comments.
And Saddam Hussein walked right into it, believing that the US would do nothing if his troops invaded Kuwait. On August 2, 1990, eight days after Glaspie's meeting with the Iraqi president, Saddam Hussein's massed troops invaded Kuwait.
One month later in Baghdad, British journalists obtained the tape and transcript of the Saddam Hussein-April Glaspie meeting on July 25, 1990. In order to verify this astounding information, they attempted to confront Ms Glaspie as she was leaving the US embassy in Baghdad.
Journalist 1:
"Are the transcripts (holding them up) correct, Madam Ambassador?"
(Ambassador Glaspie does not respond)
Journalist 2:
"You knew Saddam was going to invade (Kuwait), but you didn't warn him not to. You didn't tell him America would defend Kuwait. You told him the opposite - that America was not associated with Kuwait."
Journalist 1:
"You encouraged this aggression - his invasion. What were you thinking?"
US Ambassador Glaspie:
"Obviously, I didn't think, and nobody else did, that the Iraqis were going to take all of Kuwait."
Journalist 1:
"You thought he was just going to take SOME of it? But how COULD YOU?! Saddam told you that, if negotiations failed, he would give up his Iran (Shatt al Arab Waterway) goal for the WHOLE of Iraq, in the shape we wish it to be. You KNOW that includes Kuwait, which the Iraqis have always viewed as a historic part of their country!"
(Ambassador Glaspie says nothing, pushing past the two journalists to leave)
"America green-lighted the invasion. At a minimum, you admit signalling Saddam that some aggression was okay - that the US would not oppose a grab of the al-Rumalya oil field, the disputed border strip and the Gulf Islands (including Bubiyan) - territories claimed by Iraq?"
(Again, Ambassador Glaspie says nothing as a limousine door closes behind her and the car drives off.)
Two years later, during the American television network NBC News Decision '92s third round of the Presidential Debate, 1992 presidential candidate Ross Perot was quoted as saying:
"...we told him (Saddam) he could take the northern part of Kuwait; and when he took the whole thing we went nuts. And if we didn't tell him that, why won't we even let the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the Senate Intelligence Committee see the written instructions for Ambassador Glaspie?"
At this point he (Perot) was interrupted by then President George Bush Senior who yelled:
"I've got to reply to that. That gets to national honour!...That is absolutely absurd!"
Absurd or not, the fact of the matter is that after April Glaspie left Baghdad in late August 1990 and returned to Washington, she was kept under wraps by the State Department for eight months, not allowed to talk to the media, and did not surface until just before the official end of the Gulf war (April 11, 1991), when she was called to testify informally before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee about her meeting with Saddam Hussein.
She said she was the victim of "deliberate deception on a major scale" and denounced the transcript of the meeting as "a fabrication" that distorted her position, though she admitted that it contained "a great deal" that was accurate.
The veteran diplomat awaited her next assignment, later taking a low-profile job at the United Nations in New York. She was later shunted off to Cape Town, South Africa, as US Consul General. Nothing has been heard of her since her retirement from the diplomatic service in 2002. It's almost as if she has become a non-person.
[link to www.thirdworldtraveler.com]
Quoting: Normal Is Subjective
This was my first thought.
Let Israel bomb Iran.
U.S. hands are squeaky clean.
Next step is to act all surprised and jump with both feet and the combined feet of several other countries on Israel.
No more Israeli problem. No more Israeli interference in U.S. business. No more whining Israel. It would secure the alliance with oil rich ME countries.
But the Biblical reference comes to mind. Israel is a burdensome stone. There are many countries that want Israel off their backs. But the scripture says that those countries will be injured in the attempt to rid themselves of that burdensome stone.
Mr. Predictor Forum Moderator User ID: 287257 7/5/2009 1:56 PM
Saudis allowing Israeili jets, and uncle Joe saying Israel can do what it wants. Me thinks a conflict is brewing. I don't think things will go as smoothly as uncle sam and his fellow shiek uncles would like. The gulf regimes are so fragile that they're willing to cooperate with Israel, so it would make sense for Iran to target them more than Israel. oh well
July 5, 2009, 5:51 PM (GMT+02:00)
US Vice President Joseph Biden: Israel must determine for itself.
In an interview with ABC's George Stephanoupolos taped Saturday, vice president Joseph Biden said in answer to a question: "Look, Israel can determine for itself — it's a sovereign nation — what's in their interest and what they decide to do relative to Iran and anyone else." Whether we agree or not? The interviewer asked. "Whether we agree or not," said the vice president.
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 689963
There are many, many sovereign nations in this world and from my recollection, the US has had little problem imposing it's will on them. Israel, or any other nation, is permitted to act as a sovereign nation without when the US DOES agree or the pawn country is doing our bidding. Just exactly how stupid do they think we are?
I wonder..... how anxious Israel would be to take on Iran if it was made clear that they will be acting ALONE from start to finish and that we will not be sending funds nor troops at any point? -- (yeah, i know, never happen)
Elijah Forum Moderator User ID: 673980 7/5/2009 2:04 PM
North Korea could decide to attack a neighbor, but we would stand in their way. It's not about being sovereign, it's about alliances. [link to www.youtube.com]
that means USA gives go ahead to Israel to bomb Iran. Only Iran is too big.
That means Iran retaliates (still conventional), and Israel is hit back hard enough to start dreaming non conventional means. US soldiers in the Gulf may feel the "nothing-to-do" in Iraq is about to expire.
two things to consider:
1. Both Israel and Iran are nuclear armed. it is not true Iran has only as much nuclear stuff as it could build. Iran has at least 250 Ukrainian warheads from the soviet collapse, total of 20 Megaton. The Russian gen. chief of staff at that time did not deny the report.
For Israel, a recent publication said "hydrogen bombs somewhere between 60 and 400". let accept the upper limit, though it could be lowered as always for Israeli statements.
2. The way USA defends Israel, the same way Russia and China have interests in Iran. Moreover, in any doomsday scenario, for Russia will be of a vital importance to eliminate those Israeli bombs. Allies or not, Israel and USA are armed enough to hit back at Russia in case of WW3.
You understand the point - if the things go towards WW3, the preemptive first strike is imperative for survival. Then those 400 thermonuclear warheads on missiles in Israel become a grave danger for Russia for a possible retaliation on behalf of USA. Therefore any development towards WW3 involves a first strike of Russia on Israel, along with the decades long developed plans of neutralizing USA in only one hour.
Does Israel understand what will follow when deciding to bomb Iranian reactors (that after all do not produce the ready Ukrainian bombs)? I do not know, but I hope USA understands it cannot be a winner with hundreds of bombs exploding on its territory. Russia - it could be. It won two World Wars with millions killed and a total destruction (especially WW2). What is unacceptable for USA as a retaliation for a first strike - 200 550kt warheads, or roughly the equivalent of the Tzar bomb (100 mt), could be the acceptable damage for Russia if it is sure the first strike will bring the victory... Moscow is built upon underground tunnels. Yamantau mountain is the only known name of a top secret underground object as large as a city. How many unknown there are? Some say - at least 200. Russia is reading for what seems to come very quickly - WW3.
Don't the modern Israeli warplanes work off satellite coordinates for all attack locations. So wouldn't a dust storm over all Iran be to Israels advantage. Israel flying above the dust cloud still bomb the marked targets in relative safety from being attacked from below.
Interesting that Iran says it is a strange occurrence that this dust haze-storm has come about. Weather modification anyone?
"The metropolis of Tehran is also covered with the dust and citizens are surprised over the causes of the haze."
Wasn't there a major dust storm that covered the US troops as they invaded Iraq in 2002.
Disclaimer: This website exists for entertainment purposes only. The reader is responsible for discerning the validity, factuality
or implications of information posted here, be it fictional or based on real events. Moderators on this forum make every
effort to review the material posted on this site however, it is not realistically possible for our small staff to manually
review each and every one of the more than 10,000 posts GodlikeProductions gets on a daily basis.
The content of post
on this site, including but not limited to links to other web sites, are the expressed opinion of the original poster and are in
no way representative of or endorsed by the owners or administration of this website. The posts on this website are the opinion of
the specific author and are not statements of advice, opinion, or factual information on behalf of the owner or
administration of GodlikeProductions.
This site may contain adult content and if you feel you might be offended by such content, you should log off immediately.
Not all posts on this website are intended as truthful or factual assertion by their authors. Some users of this website are participating in internet role playing, with or without the use of an avatar. NO post on this website should be considered factual information on face value alone. Users are encouraged to USE DISCERNMENT and do their own follow up research while reading and posting on this website. Godlikeproductions.com reserves the right to make changes to, corrections and/or remove entirely at any time posts made on this website without notice. In addition, Godlikeproductions.com disclaims any and all liability for damages incurred directly or indirectly as a result of a post on this website.
This site is provided "as is" without warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied. You should not assume that this site is error-free or that it will be suitable for the particular purpose which you have in mind when using it. In no event shall Godlikeproductions.com be liable for any special, incidental, indirect or consequential damages of any kind, or any damages whatsoever, including, without limitation, those resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether or not advised of the possibility of damage, and on any theory of liability, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of this site or other documents which are referenced by or linked to this site.
Some events depicted in certain posting and threads on this website may be fictitious and any similarity to any person living or dead is merely coincidental. Some other articles may be based on actual events but which in certain cases incidents, characters and timelines have been changed for dramatic purposes. Certain characters may be composites, or entirely fictitious.
We do not discriminate against the mentally ill!
Fair Use Notice: This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Users may make such material available in an effort to advance awareness and understanding of issues relating to civil rights, economics, individual rights, international affairs, liberty, science & technology, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C.Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information please visit: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
Please be aware any communications sent complaining about a post on this website may be posted publicly at the discretion of the administration.
This Disclaimer is subject to change at anytime.
Mail Webmaster with questions or comments about this site.
Debka is Sorcha Faal as well
