IRAN

[jeza u ledja]

Sjecas li se ananasa u konzervi tamo negdje '93?

Ja se sjecam mm s bombonica.... slavlje kada potrefis lanc paket sa njima

i ja se najbolje sjecam tih lanc paketa od svega.
dobro je gorila ona ambalaza

[Fudo387]

Pa ja, tako, hvala Bidenu.
A ne tamo, cionista, ovo, ono...
Salihaga, utepali smo te k’o zeca.
Povuci se bez gubitaka.

Niste, jedna lasta ne cini proljece... Cionista se verbalno zalagao, iako to tada nije pilo vode, a drzava koju su osnovali pomagala agresora.

Nije ti ovo saban saulic.

Pogino frajer.

[славянин]

Pogino frajer.

Mene ne spominji .. jes cuo

[Fudo387]

Pogino frajer.

Mene ne spominji .. jes cuo

Mog’o bih ja tarife uvest’ za to.

[elcaliente]

Mislim da je sazrilo vrijeme da se vise i ovo pitanje Irana rijesi, od kada sam se rodio sa njima neki problemi.

Samo je pitanje na koji nacin ce se to rijesiti, u direktnom udaru americkih vojnih snaga se poslije nekog vremena vise nebi mogli braniti ali imaju srece sto Trump nije predsjednik koji voli da ratuje tako da napada nece biti.
Ali je odlucio da ih zavrsi definitivno.

[славянин]

Mislim da je sazrilo vrijeme da se vise i ovo pitanje Iransrijesi, od kada sam se rodio sa njima neki problemi.

Samo je pitanje na koji nacin ce se to rijesiti, u direktnom udaru americkih vojnih snaga se poslije nekog vremena vise nebi mogli braniti ali imaju srece sto Trump nije predsjednik koji voli da ratuje tako da napada nece biti.
Ali je odlucio da ih zavrsi definitivno.

Ma jake sankcije + eventualno neki indicent u Perzijskom zaljevu da im mornaricu i naftne terminale polupaju onda samo pricekati ..

[walk_M-A-N]

Kakva neograničeno glupa i monstruozna izjava.
Imamo državu Iran koja nije agresor a sama je bila pod agresijom Iraka.
I imamo državu Izrael koja pored svih prethodnih zločina i agresija sada sprema koaliciju za rat odnosno napad na Iran.
"riješiti problem" znači uništiti još jednu od onih sedam država, bilansu od najmanje četiri miliona mrtvih dodati još milion ili koliko više miliona.
Nakon tih nezamislivih žrtava, smrti i patnje, uvesti im teroristički MEK da budu u "slobodi". Ili možda Isil, kao u Iraku i Siriji.
Povećati šanse za nuklearni sukob. Izrael ima nuklearno oružje, vjerovatno i Saudija. Ne znam bi li Rusija samo gledala kad znaju da su oni sljedeći.
Oni koji to žele bolje da se nisu ni rodili.

[Challenger_]

Kakva neograničeno glupa i monstruozna izjava.
Imamo državu Iran koja nije agresor a sama je bila pod agresijom Iraka.
I imamo državu Izrael koja pored svih prethodnih zločina i agresija sada sprema koaliciju za rat odnosno napad na Iran.
"riješiti problem" znači uništiti još jednu od onih sedam država, bilansu od najmanje četiri miliona mrtvih dodati još milion ili koliko više miliona.
Nakon tih nezamislivih žrtava, smrti i patnje, uvesti im teroristički MEK da budu u "slobodi". Ili možda Isil, kao u Iraku i Siriji.
Oni koji to žele bolje da se nisu ni rodili.

Tipujem da su njihovi tako podržavali Adolfa. Pa dobili po pi**i.

[славянин]

Kakva neograničeno glupa i monstruozna izjava.
Imamo državu Iran koja nije agresor a sama je bila pod agresijom Iraka.
I imamo državu Izrael koja pored svih prethodnih zločina i agresija sada sprema koaliciju za rat odnosno napad na Iran.
"riješiti problem" znači uništiti još jednu od onih sedam država, bilansu od najmanje četiri miliona mrtvih dodati još milion ili koliko više miliona.
Nakon tih nezamislivih žrtava, smrti i patnje, uvesti im teroristički MEK da budu u "slobodi". Ili možda Isil, kao u Iraku i Siriji.
Oni koji to žele bolje da se nisu ni rodili.

Jeli ko napisao da je to ispravno ili neispravno - dobro ili lose ?? Nego kazem svoje misljenje koje sam formirao po historiji americkih intervencija - u vecini slucajeva su se vodili nekako ovom hronologijom.

[Atego]

Mislim da je sazrilo vrijeme da se vise i ovo pitanje Irana rijesi, od kada sam se rodio sa njima neki problemi.

Samo je pitanje na koji nacin ce se to rijesiti, u direktnom udaru americkih vojnih snaga se poslije nekog vremena vise nebi mogli braniti ali imaju srece sto Trump nije predsjednik koji voli da ratuje tako da napada nece biti.
Ali je odlucio da ih zavrsi definitivno.

Zlo u svom najcistijem obliku. Sta sve vreba forumima...fuj

[GandalfSivi]

Kakvim se likovima okruzio, ne bi me cudilo da ga prenese i da napadne. To bi bila greska katastrofalnih razmjera i politicko samoubistvo koje ni on ne bi mogao podnijeti. Problem je u tome sto mu "saptaci" ne zavise od politicke klime nego od profita. Sve kontam nece budala, ali nikada se ne zna...

[Sanjarko]

Hezbolah ima oko 120.000 projektila a manji je od Irana koliko puta. Iran zadnje sta sam cuo moze pod oruzje da stavi 10 miliona ljudi. Koji bi to samo rat bio. Ubitacan. Jos koliko bi samo projektila letilo svuda. Jos Shije u okolnim drzavama koje bi se stavile na stranu Irana mozda.

Kurcslus bi bio samo takav.

[Challenger_]

Kakvim se likovima okruzio, ne bi me cudilo da ga prenese i da napadne. To bi bila greska katastrofalnih razmjera i politicko samoubistvo koje ni on ne bi mogao podnijeti. Problem je u tome sto mu "saptaci" ne zavise od politicke klime nego od profita. Sve kontam nece budala, ali nikada se ne zna...

Nije se on okružio već ga je okružila duboka država. Kakav profit. Izraelski interesi, naravno. Israel first politika.

[Challenger_]

Preciznije, Israel über alles politika.

[GandalfSivi]

Kakvim se likovima okruzio, ne bi me cudilo da ga prenese i da napadne. To bi bila greska katastrofalnih razmjera i politicko samoubistvo koje ni on ne bi mogao podnijeti. Problem je u tome sto mu "saptaci" ne zavise od politicke klime nego od profita. Sve kontam nece budala, ali nikada se ne zna...

Nije se on okružio već ga je okružila duboka država. Kakav profit. Izraelski interesi, naravno. Israel first politika.

Prvi dio se slazemo, za drugi ohani malo sa paranojama ba, nije bas toliko mocan Izrael. Da jeste dobivali bi cash od Amerike, a ne milijarde u oruzju (gdje profit pravi neko drugi). Ili ako bas hoces, da su toliko mocni, ne bi Stephen Miller ili Steve Bannon prije njega prismrdili Bijeloj kuci. Da ne pricam o drugim, ozbiljnijim stvarima...

[Challenger_]

Ma kakve paranoje. Car je odavno go. Nema dalje.

[elcaliente]

Kakva neograničeno glupa i monstruozna izjava.
Imamo državu Iran koja nije agresor a sama je bila pod agresijom Iraka.
I imamo državu Izrael koja pored svih prethodnih zločina i agresija sada sprema koaliciju za rat odnosno napad na Iran.
"riješiti problem" znači uništiti još jednu od onih sedam država, bilansu od najmanje četiri miliona mrtvih dodati još milion ili koliko više miliona.
Nakon tih nezamislivih žrtava, smrti i patnje, uvesti im teroristički MEK da budu u "slobodi". Ili možda Isil, kao u Iraku i Siriji.
Povećati šanse za nuklearni sukob. Izrael ima nuklearno oružje, vjerovatno i Saudija. Ne znam bi li Rusija samo gledala kad znaju da su oni sljedeći.
Oni koji to žele bolje da se nisu ni rodili.

Imamo drzavu Iran koja ima mladu populaciju, prirodna bogastva, dugu istoriju i onda im na vlast dodju senilini metuzalemi furajuci neku religoznu igru da bi ugnjetavali svoj narod evo vec 30 i kusur godina. Jeli vam zao te omladine tamo kojoj su oduzeli svu vrstu individualnog izbora? Zamislite sebe u takvom rezimu gdje vam neki 60togodisnji vjerski vodza odlucuje sta i kako ce te svaki dan raditi, prodavajuci vam muda za bubrege i provodeci silu nad vama?
Sumnjam da ce biti otvorenog rata tamo vjerovatno ce neka vrsta revolucije opet da se desi ali ce ih definitivno rijesiti u sljedecem vremenu.

Imali smo primjer sa Sadamom koji je znao da nema sanse da se odbrani u vojnom duelu i opet je svjesno slao svoj narod u smrt, tako rade svi ti rezimi pa nesumnjam da bi i Iranski rezim to isto uradio bez imalo griznje savjesti.

[Challenger_]

Imamo drzavu Iran koja ima mladu populaciju, prirodna bogastva, dugu istoriju i onda im na vlast dodju senilini metuzalemi furajuci neku religoznu ...

Demagogija.

Ko će s snjima vladati to je sasvim iranska stvar. Ako hoće sadadšnji sistem, OK, ako žele nešto drugo, opet OK. Njihova a ne tuđa stvar.

[elcaliente]

Imamo drzavu Iran koja ima mladu populaciju, prirodna bogastva, dugu istoriju i onda im na vlast dodju senilini metuzalemi furajuci neku religoznu ...

Demagogija.

Ko će s snjima vladati to je sasvim iranska stvar. Ako hoće sadadšnji sistem, OK, ako žele nešto drugo, opet OK. Njihova a ne tuđa stvar.

I ja to mislim, zato im treba omoguciti fer i demokratske izbore pa neka se ljudi odluce kakvo urdjenje drzave zele.

Zato i kazem vjerovatno ce biti neka vrsta revolucije a ne otvoreni napad.

[Challenger_]

I ja to mislim, zato im treba omoguciti fer i demokratske izbore pa neka se ljudi odluce kakvo urdjenje drzave zele.

Iran ima i fer i demokratske izbore. Koje ni u snu nemaju one zalivske glavosječe koji su jarani Izraela i njihovih američkih kmetova.

[Challenger_]

Pored Sauda, Bahreina, Katara, Kuvajta... oni se zadeverali Iranom i "brigom" za tamošnju demokratiju. Koja ubleha, hahahaha.

[Sanjarko]

Nema Iran mladu populaciju. Ima TFR ne nivou Europe i EU sto znaci da ce u buducnosti Iranu polako da pada populacija.

[walk_M-A-N]

Preciznije, Israel über alles politika.

Ta politika ima više imena, recimo Yinon plan.

2001 Policy Coup
Four-star general Wesley Clark, former Supreme Allied Commander, has described what he called a 2001 “policy coup” by a small group of people intent on destabilizing and taking over the Middle East, targeting six of the seven countries mentioned by Obama and Trump.
Clark gave the details in 2007 in an interview broadcast by Democracy Now and in a lecture at the Commonwealth Club of San Francisco.
Clark described a chance meeting in the Pentagon in 2001 ten days after 911 in which he learned about the plan to take down these countries.
After meeting with then-Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, Clark went downstairs to say hello to people on the Joint Staff who had worked for him in the past. One of the generals called him in.
‘Sir, you’ve got to come in and talk to me a second.” He told Clark, “We’ve made the decision we’re going to war with Iraq.”
Clark was shocked. He said, “We’re going to war against Iraq? Why?” The officer said he didn’t know. Clark asked if they had found information connecting Saddam to Al-Qaeda. The man said, “No, no, there’s nothing new that way. They just made the decision to go to war with Iraq.”
A few weeks later, Clark went back to the Pentagon and spoke to the general again. He asked whether the U.S. was still planning to go to war against Iraq.
The general replied: “Oh, it’s worse than that.” Clark says that the general picked up a piece of paper and said, “I just got this down from upstairs today. This is a memo that describes how we’re going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.”
Clark asked, “Is it classified?” He said, “Yes, sir.”
Clark said he was stunned: “I couldn’t believe it would really be true. But that’s actually what happened. These people took control of the policy of the United States.”
1991
Clark says he then remembered a 1991 meeting he had with Paul Wolfowitz. In 2001 Wolfowitz was Deputy Secretary of Defense, and in 1991 he was Under Secretary of Defense of Policy, the number three position at the Pentagon.
Wolfowitz is a pro-Israel neoconservative who an associate has called “over the top when it comes to Israel.”
Clark describes going to Wolfowitz’s office in March of 1991. Clark said to Wolfowitz, “You must be pretty happy with the performance of the troops in Desert Storm.” Clark says Wolfowitz replied, “Not really, because the truth is we should have gotten rid of Saddam Hussein, and we didn’t.”
Wolfowitz declared the U.S. had an opportunity to clean up “Syria, Iran, Iraq, before the next super power came on to challenge us.”
Clark says he was shocked at Wolfowitz’s proposal that the military should initiate wars and change governments, and that Wolfowitz believed that the U.S. should invade countries whose governments it disliked. “My mind was spinning.”
Clark says Scooter Libby was at that meeting. Libby is another pro-Israel neoconservative. In 2001 He was Vice President Cheney’s chief of staff, and worked closely with the Office of Special Plans, which manufactured anti-Iraq talking points.
“This country was taken over by a group of people with a policy coup,” Clark said in his 2007 lecture. “Wolfowitz, Rumsfield, Cheney, and you could name a half dozen other collaborators from the Project for a New American Century. They wanted us to destabilize the Middle East, turn it upside down, make it under our control.”
(The Project for a New American Century was a think tank that operated from 1997-2006, and was replaced by the Foreign Policy Initiative.)
Clark continued: “Did they ever tell you this? Was there a national dialogue on this? Did Senators and Congressmen stand up and denounce this plan? Was there a full-fledged American debate on it? Absolutely not. And there still isn’t.”
Clark noted that Iran and Syria know about the plan. “All you have to do is read the Weekly Standard and listen to Bill Kristol, and he blabbermouths it all over the world – Richard Perle is the same way. They could hardly wait to finish Iraq so they could move into Syria.”
Clark says that Americans did not vote George Bush into office to do this. Bush, Clark pointed out, had campaigned on “a humble foreign policy, no ‘peace keeping,’ no ‘nation building.’”
Others have described this group, their responsibility for pushing the invasion of Iraq, and their pro-Israel motivation.
Neoconservatives, Israel, and Iraq
A 2003 article in Ha’aretz , one of Israel’s main newspapers, reported bluntly: “The war in Iraq was conceived by 25 neoconservative intellectuals, most of them Jewish, who are pushing President Bush to change the course of history.” (Ha’aretz often highlights the Jewish affiliation of important players due to its role as a top newspaper of the self-declared “Jewish State.”)
It gave what it termed “a partial list” of these neoconservatives: U.S. government officials Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, and Eliot Abrams, and journalists William Kristol and Charles Krauthammer. The article described them as “mutual friends who cultivate one another.”
The article included an interview with New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, who was quoted as saying:
“It’s the war the neoconservatives wanted. It’s the war the neoconservatives marketed. Those people had an idea to sell when September 11 came, and they sold it. Oh boy, did they sell it. So this is not a war that the masses demanded. This is a war of an elite.”
The article continued:
“Friedman laughs: ‘I could give you the names of 25 people (all of whom are at this moment within a five-block radius of this office) who, if you had exiled them to a desert island a year and a half ago, the Iraq war would not have happened.’”
Another Ha’aretz article described how some of these individuals, high American officials, gave Israeli leaders tips on how to manage American actions and influence US Congressmen, concluding: “Perle, Feith, and their fellow strategists are walking a fine line between their loyalty to American governments and Israeli interests.”
Ha’aretz reported that the goal was far more than just an invasion of Iraq: “at a deeper level it is a greater war, for the shaping of a new Middle East.” The article said that the war “was being fought to consolidate a new world order.”
“The Iraq war is really the beginning of a gigantic historical experiment…”
We’re now seeing the tragic and violent result of that regime-change experiment.
American author, peace activist, and former CIA analyst Kathleen Christison discussed the neoconservatives who promoted war against Iraq in a 2002 article. She wrote: “Although much has been written about the neo-cons who dot the Bush administration, their ties to Israel have generally been treated very gingerly.”
The Bush administration, she wrote, was “peppered with people who have long records of activism on behalf of Israel in the United States, of policy advocacy in Israel, and of promoting an agenda for Israel often at odds with existing U.S. policy.”
“These people,” she wrote, “who can fairly be called Israeli loyalists, are now at all levels of government, from desk officers at the Defense Department to the deputy secretary level at both State and Defense, as well as on the National Security Council staff and in the vice president’s office.”
Author Stephen Green wrote a meticulously researched 2004 expose describing how some of these individuals, including Perle and Wolfowitz, had been investigated through the years by U.S. intelligence agencies for security “lapses” benefiting Israel.
Yet, despite a pattern of highly questionable actions suggestive of treason, they continued to procure top security clearances for themselves and cronies. The neocon agenda also became influential in Britain .
(During the recent U.S. presidential election, neoconservatives were extremely hostile to Trump, and have been perturbed to have less influence in his administration they they expected to have with Hillary Clinton. They may be relieved to see him targeting their pet punching bags in the Middle East. It’s unclear whether neoconservatives will remain outside the White House’s inner circle for long: neocon Michael Ledeen is quite close to Trump’s recently named White House National Security Advisor Michael Flynn . And there is talk that Trump may appoint Elliott Abrams as Deputy Secretary of State.)
1996 plan against Iraq and Syria
The neocon regime-change strategy had been laid out in a 1996 document called “ A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm .” It was written for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu by a study group led by Richard Perle. Although Perle and the other authors were American citizens, the “realm” in question was Israel.
Perle was chairman of the United States Defense Policy Board at that time. He had previously been U.S. Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy.
The report stated that in the past, Israel’s strategy was to get the U.S. to use its money and weaponry to “lure Arabs” to negotiate. This strategy, the plan stated, “required funneling American money to repressive and aggressive regimes.”
The report recommended, however, that Israel go beyond a strategy just focused on Israel-Palestine, and address the larger region – that it “shape its strategic environment.”
It called for “weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria” and “removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq.” The paper also listed Iran and Lebanon as countries to be dealt with (and Turkey and Jordan as nations to be used in the strategy).
The plan stressed that it was necessary to obtain U.S. support for the strategy, and advised that Israel use “language familiar to the Americans by tapping into themes of American administrations during the cold war … .”
Perle, Douglas Feith (who would be Deputy Under Secretary of Defense by 2001) and the other signatories of the report framed their proposal as a new concept, but the idea for Israel to reshape the political landscape of the Middle East had been discussed for years. (Lest we be unclear, “reshape the political landscape” means to change governments, something that has never been accomplished without massive loss of life and far-reaching repercussions.)
In 1992 Israeli leaders were already working to indoctrinate the public about an alleged need to attack Iran. Israeli analyst Israel Shahak wrote in his book
Open Secrets that the goal would be “to bring about Iran’s total military and political defeat.”
Shahak reported: “In one version, Israel would attack Iran alone, in another it would ‘persuade’ the West to do the job. The indoctrination campaign to this effect is gaining in intensity. It is accompanied by what could be called semi-official horror scenarios purporting to detail what Iran could do to Israel, the West and the entire world when it acquires nuclear weapons as it is expected to a few years hence.”
1982 & 1950s Israeli plans to fragment the Middle East
A document called “ A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties ,” proposed by Israeli analyst Oded Yinon, was published by the World Zionist Organization in 1982.
The document, translated by Israel Shahak, called for the dissolution of existing Arab states into smaller states which would, in effect, become Israel’s satellites.
In an analysis of the plan, Shahak pointed out: “[W]hile lip service is paid to the idea of the ‘defense of the West’ from Soviet power, the real aim of the author, and of the present Israeli establishment is clear: To make an Imperial Israel into a world power.”
Shahak noted that Israeli Defense Minister Ariel Sharon planned “to deceive the Americans after he has deceived all the rest.”
Shahak wrote that reshaping the Middle East on behalf of Israel had been discussed since the 1950s: “This is not a new idea, nor does it surface for the first time in Zionist strategic thinking. Indeed, fragmenting all Arab states into smaller units has been a recurrent theme.”
As Shahak pointed out, this strategy was documented in a book called Israel’s Sacred Terrorism (1980), by Livia Rokach. Drawing on the memoirs of the second Prime Minister of Israel, Rokach’s book described, among other things, a 1954 proposal to execute regime change in Lebanon.
The result
Returning to the present, let’s examine the situation in the “countries of concern” named by President Trump last week, by President Obama in 2015, and targeted by Wolfowitz et al in 2001.
Several years ago, journalist Glenn Greenwald commented on General Clark’s statement about the 2001 policy coup: “If you go down that list of seven countries that he said the neocons had planned to basically change the governments of, you pretty much see that vision… being fulfilled.”
Greenwald noted that the governments of Iraq, Libya, and Lebanon had been changed; the U.S. had escalated its proxy fighting and drone attacks in Somalia; U.S. troops were deployed in Sudan; “and the most important countries on that list, Iran and Syria, are clearly the target of all sorts of covert regime change efforts on the part of the United States and Israel.”

[rajv0sa]

Mislim da je sazrilo vrijeme da se vise i ovo pitanje Iransrijesi, od kada sam se rodio sa njima neki problemi.

Samo je pitanje na koji nacin ce se to rijesiti, u direktnom udaru americkih vojnih snaga se poslije nekog vremena vise nebi mogli braniti ali imaju srece sto Trump nije predsjednik koji voli da ratuje tako da napada nece biti.
Ali je odlucio da ih zavrsi definitivno.

Ma jake sankcije + eventualno neki indicent u Perzijskom zaljevu da im mornaricu i naftne terminale polupaju onda samo pricekati ..

Pazi politickog eksperta
Koliko si ti tragikomičan lik, ovdje ti kao nešto protiv Srba bombardovanja hahu, a na drugim temama krvis se sa fudom i ostalima da je bosnjacki nacionalizam i sda najveci probelm. Samo u kontru pa makar protiv samog sebe.

[славянин]

Pazi politickog eksperta
Koliko si ti tragikomičan lik, ovdje ti kao nešto protiv Srba bombardovanja hahu, a na drugim temama krvis se sa fudom i ostalima da je bosnjacki nacionalizam i sda najveci probelm. Samo u kontru pa makar protiv samog sebe.

Ovdje samo jedan politicki ekspert moze biti - a znamo koje to

Srbi su dobili sto su zasluzili, kao sto ce vjerovatno i Asad a moguce i K.U.D. Mullah.Pro iranci ovdje bi prodali Bosnu juce da Iranu bude bolje, zato nam se i objasnjava kako je ustvari Rusija prijatelj a Amerika neprijatelj.

Tako je nacionalizam i sda i jesu najveci problemi.. citaj malo pa mozda i skontas..