Posted on 07/05/2009 9:41:18 AM PDT by blueyon
Vice President Joe Biden says the U.S. will not stand in Israel's way if Israel believes military action is needed to eliminate Iran's nuclear threat.
Biden says the U.S. "cannot dictate to another sovereign nation what they can and cannot do."
(Excerpt) Read more at google.com ...
“Even a stopped clock is right twice a day!” lol
Get a Scotch taster,Joe!
Even though I sympathize with the thought. In this climate, I’d think that Israel had better keep their nuke strikes strategic and avoid any major population extinction.
I wouldn’t trust Obama any farther than I could throw the United Nations.
We know what we can expect from these fork tounged, lieing, communist SOBs.
“In this climate, I’d think that Israel had better keep their nuke strikes strategic and avoid any major population extinction.”
Israel won’t use nukes to go after Iran’s nuke program. It’ll all be conventional bombing. It remains to be seen how the rest of the Muslim world will react to the initial conflict, though.
This is exactly what Osama did about a month ago when he warned Israel against preemptive strikes against Iran.
Pick from the following options:
a. They disagree with each other.
b. Neither one of them knows their asses from holes in the ground.
c. The Vice President is too stupid to know what his boss said.
d. This is intentional misdirection for reasons that are unclear.
e. All of the above.
f. None of the above.
I differ on that opinion. The US is controlled by a Marxist, leeches scrambling for control and domination. Israel knows this. Survival of a more permanent option is their goal
I take B for fifty,Alex!
What the heck are you talking about??
No one said anything about nuking iran.
The USofA won’t stand in the way . . . unsaid: Neither will the USofA support Israel if there’s a problem.
Then why is Obama interfering with the sovereign nation Honduras?
Biden is speaking as someone who actually knows and cares about laws and such, jerk that he is. He at least has spent enough time in the Senate to understand that concept.
Obama is sitting back and saying “What do you mean? I am the “ruler”.
When did that policy go into effect?
With this and the Saudi news...something is about to drop and it isn’t a shoe....but a hell of a lot of bombs.
I vote for “b”
because his guy got run out of town
“cannot dictate to another sovereign nation what they can and cannot do.”
Well what the hell are you babosos doing with Honduras there Joe ya drunk?
what are you saying? I’m feeling less than smart today...
Note: this only happened after Saudi Arabia gave permission to let Israel use their airspace to attack Iran. Obama doesn’t want to make problems for his king.
I was thinking more of a “broken” clock...
Even worse, Honduras, where he sided with Chavez, Castro, and Ortega, in support of a constitutionally removed tyrant.
I expect the President’s Muddler in Chief, Gibbs, to come out any time to “clarify” the VP opinion by some 180 degrees.
Your reply to the original posting which indicated reaction to a ‘nuclear threat’. While not specifically advocating likewise reaction (e.g. nuclear), dealing with such is hardly something left to asymmetric responses......
Writing is on the wall in plain view...a lot of CYA going on right now in plain daylight with regards to Iran.
Me too, B is the answer.
Anyone else getting a headache with all this flipity-flopity coming out of the WH? Hmm, or maybe that’s the plan.
Nukes are not required to destroy nukes. Using a nuke to destroy a nuke would be stupid.
When you absolutely, positively gotta be assured of total destruction use Federal Extreme.........
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.