Iran......pro et contra?

[baka]

Ako krenu ameri na Iran, ja mislim da ce se i onaj lud korejanac umješati, i da on ispali sta ima. Jesu mali i svi jadni nikakvi, al ameri ne smeju ni da prdnu na njih. Pricalo se o atomskoj bombi i hemijskom oruziju u iraku, pa nista nismo vidjeli. Izgleda da i Iran nema nista ozbiljnije od naouruzanja cim se ovi spremaju da napadnu, jer sigurno je da nisu spremni ameri na velike zrtve, ne mogu vise na 5 frontova, pare su ogromne u pitanju. A i ameri ne trpe velike zrtve, oprzili se o Vijetnam. Mislim da ce se sve zavrsiti po onoj staroj poslovici : " gde je puno prdnjave, malo sranje bude" ....

[revolver amidza]

Bome Fair, ko se nadao da ce Iran uspijeti da napravi novu "igracku" taj ne vidi ili nece da gleda realno.

Da parafraziram tatu Busha: Citajte mi s usana... Iran nece imati A oruzje.

Ujedno, ako dodje do bombardovanja, "zzzzz" i ostali, nemojte kriviti mene. Ni amere.

pa ako je tebi tata,većini nas nije ,..ali manimo se toga,čuj nemojte kriviti mene i amere,ti to kao neki glasnogovrnik ili njihov advokat,..,stvar je vrlo jednostavna,ako iran uspije(ali vrlo teško)da napravi a-bomu i izvrši test,spašen je i samo na taj način,..ako ne,..najebo je,...pakistan je spasilo od indije jedino to što je i sam napravio a-bombu,..nažalost takva su pravila,..a ja lično želim da zemlja kosti izbaca svim onima koji su je napravili i upotrijebili,i tako stvorili stalnu prijetnju za svijet,...i na kraju j..š rat i ubijanja!

[077]

svaka čast

Sa druge strane ako moze Izrael, inace vojno drustvo gdje svi bez obzira na pol moraju u vojsku, moze imati atomsko oruzje zasto onda ne bi mogao jedan Iran?

1. Izrael nije prijetio ni jednoj zemlji u regionu.
2. Izrael je jedina demokratska drzava u regionu.
3. U Izrealu su prisutne sve tri vjeroispovjesti koje slobodno ispoljavaju svoju religiju.

Stavite se vi u kozu Jevreja u Izraelu. Svi vasi susjedi zele da vas uniste. Kako bi se Bosanci osjecali, da predsjednik Srbije npr. kaze da Bosna treba da nestane sa lica zemlje (Karadzic je slicno izjavio u parlamentu 1992, pa smo vidjeli sta se desilo na vlastitoj kozi). Problem je sto Arapi i Iranci, bilo vam drago ili ne, ne prihvataju dijalog sa Izraelom. Budimo realni, Hamas u Palestini i Mahmoud Ahmadinejad ne obecavaju nista dobro. Ovdje se ide na sukob dvaju civilizacija, to se treba izbjeci po svaku cijenu. Ako sutra Bosna bude na meti Hrvatskih i Srpskih nacionalista, Evropa i Amerika, ovaj put, nece mrdnuti prstom, a koliko su nam pomogle arapske zemlje svi se, nadam se, sjecamo.

[Misirlija]

Published on Tuesday, March 21, 2006 by The Age (Australia)
Bush's Iran Plan A Time Bomb With Explosive Results
by Kenneth Davidson

The updated version of the Bush Administration's 2002 national security strategy, released in Washington last week, identifies Iran as the country that may pose the biggest danger to the United States.

According to Reuters, the strategy document, which reaffirms pre-emptive military action as a central tenet of US security policy, raises fears the Bush Administration will resort to force to prevent Iran acquiring nuclear weapons.

If force is used, it will come in the form of air strikes, as US land forces are already overstretched in the occupation of neighbouring Iraq.

One question still to be confronted is the impact such a strike would have on the US economy and how that would affect the global economy, particularly Australia, which is, after the US, the largest-deficit country in the advanced industrial world.

At the very least, a broadening of the war in the Middle East would be certain to push up interest rates in the US and Australia, because the central banks there would have to protect the currencies' value by increasing yields. How far and fast would depend on judgements about the likely outcome of the military intervention.

An air strike against Iranian nuclear facilities is unlikely to be surgical. There are about 50 sites associated with nuclear development in Iran and they are mainly sited in towns where civilian populations would be at risk. An attack would be certain to inflame the Islamic world against the US, almost certainly lead to a full-scale civil war in Iraq with the support of the predominantly Shiite Iranian people, and the US fleet in the shallow and narrow Persian Gulf would have to withdraw or be vulnerable to Iranian missile attack.

Worse, any air strike against Iran is unlikely to get the support of the United Nations Security Council, given that China and Russia would likely veto any resolution put up by the US.

Why would the Bush Administration risk widening Gulf War II to include Iran when it still has the chance to limit its losses to Iraq? The most popular explanation is that the US wants to pre-empt the Iranian decision to set up a Tehran oil bourse to facilitate the selling and buying of oil in euros instead of US dollars.

The idea is that this would cause a chain reaction in which more and more oil producers and their customers would trade in euros and eventually force the US to pay for its oil in euros too. This would mean the US would have to do what every other country in the world has to do, namely earn foreign exchange through exports in order to pay for its oil imports.

Last year the US trade deficit for petroleum products was about $300 billion. While the $US remains the international reserve currency and oil continues to be traded in dollars, the US can pay for its oil simply by printing more IOUs in the form of US treasury bills.

If the US had to find euros (or yuan) to pay for its oil, it would have to increase taxes, cut consumption and increase exports. In short, according to this scenario, the US could no longer afford to be a military superpower and would have to cut back its global adventures.

In the process, the $US would collapse, wiping out the accumulated financial assets of America's major creditors and probably causing a depression of 1930s dimensions. More generally, such a development opens up the question of whether the reserve status of the $US is supporting US superpower status, or whether US military power is propping up the reserve currency status of the $US.

While the possibility of oil trading in euros and the yuan present a possible long-term threat to US economic and military hegemony, it doesn't have to be dealt with immediately.

Similarly, the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran is at least some years into the future. But even with nuclear weapons and the missiles to deliver them and the control systems to guide them, deterrence and the doctrine of mutually assured destruction (MAD) applies to Iran as much as it did to the Soviet Union.

The main strategic change is that if Iran gets the bomb, the US (and Israel) can't attack Iran unless they are prepared to risk MAD.

The cynical explanation for the Bush Administration's threats against Iran is that, like the build-up to the invasion of Iraq, the real objective is "regime change", which has been re-enforced by the slump in President Bush's approval rating to 34 per cent.

The only thing on the political horizon that might restore Republican fortunes is a new and credible national security threat in order to keep control of Congress in the November elections.

If the Republicans lost control of Congress, the way becomes open for hearings into the constitutionality of the Bush Administration's use of wiretaps on Americans without warrants as required by legislation.

The Republican majority in both the Senate and the Reps has blocked examination of the legality of this and other actions by the Bush Administration.

How far the Bush Administration is prepared to go in Iran in order to avoid losing control of Congress to a hostile Democrat majority, which might opt for impeachment, will have fundamental consequences for the global economy in 2006.

Kenneth Davidson is a senior columnist.

[Svemirski_Jebach]

Jam licno protiv iranskog nuklearnog programa u vojne svrhe. Znaci, eto da se ja pitam, ucinnio bih sve u mojoj moci da se pod trenutnim politickim okolnostima I ovim rezimom iran ?obeshrabri? od nuklearnog programa u vojne svrhe. Argument, ako moze amerika I rusija, moze onda I iran, I bosna, I srbija, I Milosevic, I afhanistan, I saudiska arabija, I citav svijet, je zestoko simplificiranje problema, I takvo rjesenje bi samo urbzalo ionako sigurnu propast ovog svijeta.

Ne volim busa, i smatram ga medju prvih 10 najgorih pojava u modernoj istoriji, ali nemojmo argumentovati iransko nuklearno naoruzanje busovim idiotlukom.

mislim da nisi u pravu.

ja ne gorim od zelje da vidim iran (ili bilo koju drugu drzavu) naoruzanu nuklearnim glavama. ali im ne mogu ni zabraniti da to ucine, samo zato sto se meni licno ne dopada taj rezim. svijet je put nakaradnih drzava, od indije pa do izraela, od danasnje USA pa do koreje, kine, pakistana... koje imaju ovakvo naoruzanje. licno, vise me je strah koreje, jer je tamo rezim jos gori... a ni kini nije maHane sa onolikom populacijom, a tek indiji sa BJP fasistima na vlasti i institucionalnim robovlasnistvom koje se podmece kao "najveca svjetska demokratija"... ali eto, to nikoga izgleda ne svrbi...

elem, ako nuklearni program moze imati jedna drzava, onda ga moze imati i bilo koja druga drzava, bez obzira na njeno uredjenje. ili ama bas nijedna (sto bi svakako bila moja zelja, ali znam da je to nemoguce u danasnjim okolnostima). elem, ili je OK za sve ili ni za koga; to je jedini pravedan princip i ja stojim iza moga stava. sve ostalo je supljiranje i navodjenje vode na svoju vodenicu, u stilu 'OK je za "moje" ali nije ok za "tvoje"...'

ne moze to tako, ipak nije fer.

nije mi jasno...ako se tebi ne svidja USA zasto onda ne spakujes kofere i pravac prijateljska Kuba malo dvostrukih arsina, volim pricati protiv nekoga ali ipak sam tu...jer mi je bolje...

jos jedno lazno liberalno sranje...

[danas]

dvostruki arsin imas samo ti -- ako moze USA, pakistan, izrael ili bilo ko da ima naoruzanje, moze onda i bilo koja druga drzava koja je dostigla naucni i tehnoloski stadij da ga sama moze proizvesti. ne vidim sta je sporno u mome stavu -- sa kojim se ti niposto ne moras slagati, ali za koji smatram da posjeduje osnovnu logiku. a to sto bi ti sprovodio dvostruke arsine, pa jednima davao a drugima branio... zaista nije tema ove emisije...

[Svemirski_Jebach]

dvostruki arsin imas samo ti -- ako moze USA, pakistan, izrael ili bilo ko da ima naoruzanje, moze onda i bilo koja druga drzava koja je dostigla naucni i tehnoloski stadij da ga sama moze proizvesti. ne vidim sta je sporno u mome stavu -- sa kojim se ti niposto ne moras slagati, ali za koji smatram da posjeduje osnovnu logiku. a to sto bi ti sprovodio dvostruke arsine, pa jednima davao a drugima branio... zaista nije tema ove emisije...

naravno, nije to stvar dvostrukih arsina. To je pitanje odgovorne upotrebe sile.

ja zaista ne mislim da iran treba imati nuklearnu tehnologiju...jer mislim da su neodgvorni.

s druge strane, ako se nekom zaista ne svidja neciji sistem on jednostavno ode...

[danas]

pazi, ako osoba sa 18 godina ima pravo glasa -- onda ona ima pravo glasa... pa cak i ako ce glasati za SDA ; pa cak i ako joj babo i mater nisu sa vratnika vec iz cekrcica ; pa cak i ako nije isla u prvu nam dzimnaziju u bosnjaka ta osoba ima pravo glasa, pa svidjalo se to tebi ili ne.... i tacka...

dosljedno tome, svaka drzava koja je tehnoloski razvijena da ima ovu ili onu vrstu naoruzanja, ima pravo da ih ima... zasto je iran neodgovoran? malo malo pa nekoga napadnu... iz tebe ne progovara lazni liberalizam kojeg meni sprocitavas vec predrasude najgore vrste...

sto se tice mojeg zivota u USA... kako iz svega onoga sto ja napisah ti nadje zakljucak da se ja trebam seliti iz USA...
tema je posebne emisije...

[Svemirski_Jebach]

pazi, ako osoba sa 18 godina ima pravo glasa -- onda ona ima pravo glasa... pa cak i ako ce glasati za SDA ; pa cak i ako joj babo i mater nisu sa vratnika vec iz cekrcica ; pa cak i ako nije isla u prvu nam dzimnaziju u bosnjaka ta osoba ima pravo glasa, pa svidjalo se to tebi ili ne.... i tacka...

dosljedno tome, svaka drzava koja je tehnoloski razvijena da ima ovu ili onu vrstu naoruzanja, ima pravo da ih ima... zasto je iran neodgovoran? malo malo pa nekoga napadnu... iz tebe ne progovara lazni liberalizam kojeg meni sprocitavas vec predrasude najgore vrste...

sto se tice mojeg zivota u USA... kako iz svega onoga sto ja napisah ti nadje zakljucak da se ja trebam seliti iz USA...
tema je posebne emisije...

bla bla bla bla bla...

[danas]

ma jasta vala bas, nek' si mi reko'