Brzezinski: US Should Shoot Down Israeli Bombers Targeting Iran's Nuclear Facilities

[Brainster]

Jimmy Carter's national security advisor gives an interview with the august Daily Beast and endorses "a reverse Liberty".

Quote:

How aggressive can Obama be in insisting to the Israelis that a military strike might be in America’s worst interest?
We are not exactly impotent little babies. They have to fly over our airspace in Iraq. Are we just going to sit there and watch?

What if they fly over anyway?
Well, we have to be serious about denying them that right. That means a denial where you aren’t just saying it. If they fly over, you go up and confront them. They have the choice of turning back or not. No one wishes for this but it could be a Liberty in reverse.

You know, I always figured this guy was somebody Carter picked solely because his foreign accent made him sound serious, but good lord, what an airhead!

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Pure insanity.

Brezinski wants American pilots to commit acts of war against a closely allied democracy in protection of a sworn enemy of the United States, one that has been killing US servicemen in Afghanistan and Iraq, and defending thier illegal nuclear weapons program?

Either he is totally off his rocker, or the man simply HATES jews.

[FireGarden]

I think it is a good idea.
The alternative is to allow Israel to declare war on behalf of America.

How many American targets are there in the middle east? How many are you willing to have taken out in retaliation? And why on Earth should Iran accept that America is a neutral third party when American bombs are being dropped on Iran from American planes? -- Even if those bombs and planes have an Israeli flag painted on them.

If you want America to go to war with Iran, that is one thing. But no matter how dumb starting a war with Iran sounds to me, letting Israel declare the war for you sounds even dumber.

If another American war pushes oil to 4-500 dollars a barrel, I think the world may decide that America costs more than it's worth. China has oil interests too, you know.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Obama would never give the order.

As soon as the order went out, every plane in the air would suddenly report engine trouble and return to base. There would be no way to contain the news of a near mutiny among so many commisioned officers. It would be known around the world that the president had lost control of the military. He would either be forced to resign or be impeached.

[Brainster]

Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth

Obama would never give the order.

As soon as the order went out, every plane in the air would suddenly report engine trouble and return to base. There would be no way to contain the news of a near mutiny among so many commisioned officers. It would be known around the world that the president had lost control of the military. He would either be forced to resign or be impeached.

Obama won't give the order, but I believe and hope that your idea of what would happen if he did is wrong. We have a civilian command of the military and they have the final authority on decisions like this.

[AWPrime]

Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth

Obama would never give the order.

As soon as the order went out, every plane in the air would suddenly report engine trouble and return to base. There would be no way to contain the news of a near mutiny among so many commisioned officers. It would be known around the world that the president had lost control of the military. He would either be forced to resign or be impeached.

On the other hand those pilots could simply be tried for treason and be shot.

[Brainster]

Originally Posted by FireGarden

I think it is a good idea.

Do you agree that it's "our" airspace in Iraq?

[FireGarden]

Originally Posted by Brainster

Do you agree that it's "our" airspace in Iraq?

No it's not US airspace.
Doesn't change my argument: Do you want Israel to have the right to force America into a war with Iran? Or do you think that should be an American decision?


eta: America certainly has the right (and duty?) to defend Iraq's airspace at the moment:
http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?s...&article=63931

Allowing Israeli planes to use that airspace will make America responsible for the attack. (Unless the Iraqi government agrees to the use of their airspace. But I don't think that is likely, or that it would make a difference to the Iranian response).

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Originally Posted by Brainster

Obama won't give the order, but I believe and hope that your idea of what would happen if he did is wrong. We have a civilian command of the military and they have the final authority on decisions like this.

American pilots won't defend an outlaw state with an illegitimate government that is actively killing American servicemen on the ground.

And I shudder to think what would happen should US pilots attempt to engage the most modern and experienced air force on earth. Israelis aren't pushovers like the Iraqi air forces of 1991 or 2003. No one has the experience and the success rate that Israel does in modern jet combat. The C-in-C would be sending americans into a fight where they have a less than 50-50 chance of getting the job done, let alone surviving.

[MarkCorrigan]

Originally Posted by Brainster

Do you agree that it's "our" airspace in Iraq?

I don't think it really matters if Iran thinks it is. I mean, they fully expect the US to stand by and watch either way, and declarations that it's Iraqi airspace probably won't fly because of the large American (and others) military force in the area. I don't know if firing on the planes is a good idea or not, but if the US don't then Iran will claim you could easily have done so.

[FireGarden]

Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth

American pilots won't defend an outlaw state with an illegitimate government that is actively killing American servicemen on the ground.

They would be defending American interests.

Quote:

And I shudder to think what would happen should US pilots attempt to engage the most modern and experienced air force on earth. Israelis aren't pushovers like the Iraqi air forces of 1991 or 2003. No one has the experience and the success rate that Israel does in modern jet combat. The C-in-C would be sending americans into a fight where they have a less than 50-50 chance of getting the job done, let alone surviving.

Would Israel want to go to war with America?

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Originally Posted by FireGarden

They would be defending American interests.

American interests are that Iran ceases its illegal nuclear weapons program and keep the products of that program out of the hands of terrorists.

Quote:

Would Israel want to go to war with America?

Israel isn't planning on bombing America.

[AWPrime]

Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth

American pilots won't defend an outlaw state with an illegitimate government that is actively killing American servicemen on the ground.

So they are going to betray American interests for Israeli interests then?

Quote:

And I shudder to think what would happen should US pilots attempt to engage the most modern and experienced air force on earth. Israelis aren't pushovers like the Iraqi air forces of 1991 or 2003. No one has the experience and the success rate that Israel does in modern jet combat. The C-in-C would be sending americans into a fight where they have a less than 50-50 chance of getting the job done, let alone surviving.

Their are severely overrated, Americans with F-22s would annihilate their air force.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Originally Posted by AWPrime

So they are going to betray American interests for Israeli interests then?

A stupid question based on a false premise.

Quote:

Their are severely overrated, Americans with F-22s would annihilate their air force.

How many F-22s are deployed to the middle east, atm?

How many will be deployed by the time Israel launches its raid?

[geni]

Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth

Pure insanity.

Brezinski wants American pilots to commit acts of war against a closely allied democracy in protection of a sworn enemy of the United States, one that has been killing US servicemen in Afghanistan and Iraq, and defending thier illegal nuclear weapons program?

Either he is totally off his rocker, or the man simply HATES jews.

No. He wants the US to defend airspace it is currently occupying.

[The Fool]

Pardon My laughing but....

Sword of truth is claiming the US air force is riddled with traitors and that it couldn't defeat the IDF when it is operating over its own bases....

dude, what are you babbling about?

Would the marine corps defect too? What about the Army, are they solidly loyal?

[geni]

Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth

American pilots won't defend an outlaw state with an illegitimate government that is actively killing American servicemen on the ground.

And I shudder to think what would happen should US pilots attempt to engage the most modern and experienced air force on earth. Israelis aren't pushovers like the Iraqi air forces of 1991 or 2003. No one has the experience and the success rate that Israel does in modern jet combat. The C-in-C would be sending americans into a fight where they have a less than 50-50 chance of getting the job done, let alone surviving.

Isreal's airforce hasn't been up against a worthwhile opponent in decades if ever. I'd expect any kill ration to favor the US although you are assumeing that the Isreali would continue after it was clear that the US was going to engage them.

[AWPrime]

Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth

A stupid question based on a false premise.

The premise is quite correct. The pilots will have to decide whose interests matter more to them. If they decide to refuse their lawful orders then they have committed treason. In that case they might just as well land in Israel and ask asylum.

Quote:

How many F-22s are deployed to the middle east, atm?

How many will be deployed by the time Israel launches its raid?

Even Israel needs time to prepare and I do think that this will be noticed by US intelligence.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Originally Posted by The Fool

Sword of truth is claiming the US air force is riddled with traitors

No... in fact I've said time and time again that US pilots would NOT act to protect Iran.

[Puppycow]

I don't know about shooting down Israeli jets, but I agree that we shouldn't let Israel unilaterally decide to do this. It wouldn't come to shooting down Israeli jets of course in any reasonably conceivable scenario. If Israel attacks, I believe it will happen with US condoning the action. I can't believe that Netanyahu or any Israeli leader would defy a US president like this.

[FireGarden]

Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth

American interests are that Iran ceases its illegal nuclear weapons program and keep the products of that program out of the hands of terrorists.

How would a limited military attack achieve this? And I doubt a limited attack would be possible. It assumes that the Iranians would not respond.

So you are left with regime change. And that means a huge war in a region which is very important to the whole world, including China.

And besides which, you haven't answered my point: Do you want to give Israel the right to force America into war with Iran? Letting Israeli planes bomb Iran would be a huge risk for America.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Originally Posted by FireGarden

How would a limited military attack achieve this?

Israel has the means to set back the Iranian nuclear program by years, perhaps decades. They'll take what they can get.

Originally Posted by FireGarden

It assumes that the Iranians would not respond.

You mean they might give more money to Hamas and Hezbollah?

Quote:

So you are left with regime change. And that means a huge war in a region which is very important to the whole world, including China.

No we're not. The US and Israel want Iran not to have the bomb. You are reading too much into this. Bush critics have been screaming for years that regime change in Iraq was unnnecssary, that Saddam was contained. But suddenly now regime change becomes the only option?

Originally Posted by FireGarden

And besides which, you haven't answered my point: Do you want to give Israel the right to force America into war with Iran?

Israel wouldn't be forcing America into anything. Iran is already at war with Israel and the USA and even then, it's still Irans choice how they respond to an attack. And it should be Iran that is held responsible. Not Israel for acting in self defense.

[AWPrime]

Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth

You mean they might give more money to Hamas and Hezbollah?

You mean like your Saudi friends are doing?

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by FireGarden

IAnd why on Earth should Iran accept that America is a neutral third party when American bombs are being dropped on Iran from American planes? -- Even if those bombs and planes have an Israeli flag painted on them.

Now explain to me again how Iran shoul be considered a neutral 3rd party when Iranian weapons are being used to killl Israeli citizens even though they have a Hezbollah or Hamas flag on them?

You now accept that Iran is not a neutral 3rd party and that Iran is justified in attacking Iran, yes?

Originally Posted by FireGarden

If another American war pushes oil to 4-500 dollars a barrel, I think the world may decide that America costs more than it's worth. China has oil interests too, you know.

China is not about to become a nuclear wasteland over the price of oil.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by AWPrime

On the other hand those pilots could simply be tried for treason and be shot.

No, that's not what treason is.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by AWPrime

Their are severely overrated, Americans with F-22s would annihilate their air force.

I doubt there's any F-22s in Iraq. What mission would they possibly have there?

Not that I think the US would shoot down Israeli planes. Besides, Israel could get to Iran without going over Iraq if they absolutely had to, assuming they have mid-air refueling capability. They could go over the Red Sea, arond the Arabian Peninsula and then to Iran without entering any other country's air space.

[Puppycow]

Originally Posted by WildCat

No, that's not what treason is.

I agree with you that people in this thread are misusing the words treason and traitor. Disobeying an order per se does not necessarily rise to the level of treason.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason

Quote:

In law, treason is the crime that covers some of the more serious acts of disloyalty to one's sovereign or nation. Historically, treason also covered the murder of specific social superiors, such as the murder of a husband by his wife (treason against the king was known as high treason and treason against a lesser superior was petit treason). A person who commits treason is known in law as a traitor.

Oran's Dictionary of the Law (1983) defines treason as: "...[a]...citizen's actions to help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the [parent nation]." In many nations, it is also often considered treason to attempt or conspire to overthrow the government, even if no foreign country is aided or involved by such an endeavour.

However, disobeying a lawful order is still a serious crime.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth

And I shudder to think what would happen should US pilots attempt to engage the most modern and experienced air force on earth.

That would actulally be the US Air Force.

Quote:

Israelis aren't pushovers like the Iraqi air forces of 1991 or 2003. No one has the experience and the success rate that Israel does in modern jet combat. The C-in-C would be sending americans into a fight where they have a less than 50-50 chance of getting the job done, let alone surviving.

In this theoretical situation IMHO the Israelis would be toast. Their planes would be laden with bombs, making them slower and less maneuverable. US fighters armed only with air-to-air missiles would be at a huge advantage.

Not that I think this has better than 1 chance in a thousand of happening.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

I agree with you that people in this thread are misusing the words treason and traitor. Disobeying an order per se does not necessarily rise to the level of treason.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason


However, disobeying a lawful order is still a serious crime.

You're not using the proper definition of treason. Treason is the only crime defined in the US Constitution:

Originally Posted by US Constitution

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

You'd be hard-pressed to claim that Israel is an enemy of the United States.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by AWPrime

You mean like your Saudi friends are doing?

Evidence?

[AWPrime]

Originally Posted by WildCat

You're not using the proper definition of treason. Treason is the only crime defined in the US Constitution:

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court."

You'd be hard-pressed to claim that Israel is an enemy of the United States.

So it wouldn't be treason if an American supplied the Russians with classified US documents and technologies during WWII?

In either case I do think that this would go beyond disobeying a lawful order. As it directly favors another nation.

[Puppycow]

Originally Posted by WildCat

You're not using the proper definition of treason. Treason is the only crime defined in the US Constitution:

You'd be hard-pressed to claim that Israel is an enemy of the United States.

Interesting. Is there an official definition of "enemy" in the constitution?
In the hypothetical event, there would be hostilities between the two countries. There would not be a congressional declaration of war, but then there hasn't been an official declaration of war since WW2, has there?

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by AWPrime

So it wouldn't be treason if an American supplied the Russians with classified US documents and technologies during WWII?

Nope, the USSR was an ally then, not an enemy. It would still be illegal, but not treason.

[AWPrime]

Originally Posted by WildCat

Evidence?

According to a summary of the meeting written by a Hamas official, Mr. Mishaal and other Hamas representatives thanked their Saudi hosts for continuing ''to send aid to the people through the civilian and popular channels, despite all the American pressures exerted on them.''
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/17/wo...rutinized.html

But the strongest documented cases that demonstrate the ties between Saudi Arabia's global charities and international terrorism are related to Hamas. These ties were allegedly already in place in the mid-1990s when a Hamas funding group received instructions to write letters of thanks to executives of IIRO and WAMY for funds it had received. In 1994, President Clinton made a brief stop-over in Saudi Arabia during which he complained about Saudi funding of Hamas. These charges about Saudi Arabia bankrolling Hamas have become even more vociferous in recent years.
http://www.jcpa.org/jl/vp504.htm


The Hamas is active in a number of other countries in the Middle East, including Iran, Lebanon and Saudi Arabia. These countries provide support and assistance in funding and operations training.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...amas-funds.htm

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

Interesting. Is there an official definition of "enemy" in the constitution?
In the hypothetical event, there would be hostilities between the two countries. There would not be a congressional declaration of war, but then there hasn't been an official declaration of war since WW2, has there?

Congressional authorizations of military force are for all intents and purposes a declaration of war, there is no wording specified under the Constitution to declare war.

Interestingly, the reason we don't use the words "declare war on Country X" any more is for diplomatic and propaganda reasons, so as not to appear to be at war against civilians of that country.

But I'm pretty sure that "enemy" would have to be defined by the POTUS at least before anyone could be tried for treason. It's an extremely high legal hurdle, for that reason a charge of treason is extremely rare. Not even Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, who supplied the USSR with information on the atomic bomb, were charged with treason. They were executed for espionage.

[AWPrime]

Originally Posted by WildCat

Nope, the USSR was an ally then, not an enemy. It would still be illegal, but not treason.

Then what would it be? It clearly goes beyond disobeying a lawful order as it directly favors another country at the expense of America.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by AWPrime

According to a summary of the meeting written by a Hamas official, Mr. Mishaal and other Hamas representatives thanked their Saudi hosts for continuing ''to send aid to the people through the civilian and popular channels, despite all the American pressures exerted on them.''
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/17/wo...rutinized.html

But the strongest documented cases that demonstrate the ties between Saudi Arabia's global charities and international terrorism are related to Hamas. These ties were allegedly already in place in the mid-1990s when a Hamas funding group received instructions to write letters of thanks to executives of IIRO and WAMY for funds it had received. In 1994, President Clinton made a brief stop-over in Saudi Arabia during which he complained about Saudi funding of Hamas. These charges about Saudi Arabia bankrolling Hamas have become even more vociferous in recent years.
http://www.jcpa.org/jl/vp504.htm


The Hamas is active in a number of other countries in the Middle East, including Iran, Lebanon and Saudi Arabia. These countries provide support and assistance in funding and operations training.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...amas-funds.htm

Your examples are of NGOs, not governmental organizations. By that definition the US funded the IRA. Hamas and Hezbollah have long tried to court the Arab world, but for the most part they are pariahs for being so closely linked to the Shia government of Iran.

The Iranian government not only funds Hamas and Hezbollah, they provide weapons and training to them.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by AWPrime

Originally Posted by WildCat

Nope, the USSR was an ally then, not an enemy. It would still be illegal, but not treason.

Then what would it be?

Espionage, still punishable by death back then. Not sure about now.

Quote:

It clearly goes beyond disobeying a lawful order as it directly favors another country at the expense of America.

Doubtful.

[AWPrime]

Originally Posted by WildCat

Your examples are of NGOs, not governmental organizations. By that definition the US funded the IRA. Hamas and Hezbollah have long tried to court the Arab world, but for the most part they are pariahs for being so closely linked to the Shia government of Iran.

From my second link:

Quote:

It would be incorrect to view these charities as purely non-governmental organizations (NGOs) or private charities, as they are mistakenly called. At the apex of each organization's board is a top Saudi official. The Saudi Grand Mufti, who is also a Saudi cabinet member, chairs the Constituent Council of the Muslim World League. The Saudi Minister of Islamic Affairs chairs the secretariat of WAMY and the administrative council of al-Haramain. All three organizations have received large charitable contributions from the Saudi royal family that have been detailed in Saudi periodicals. Indeed, according to legal documents submitted on behalf of the Saudis by their legal team in the firm Baker Botts, in the 9/11 lawsuit, Prince Sultan provided $266,000 a year to the IIRO for sixteen years.12 He also provided a much smaller sum to WAMY. In short, these Saudi charities were full-fledged GOs - governmental organizations.

[AWPrime]

Originally Posted by WildCat

Doubtful.

Got anything more?